Is the Roman Catholic Church the "mother church?"

Bob, what do you mean by a "coming out" of the true church?

 

Sorry a misquote, thanks for pointing it out for me. I meant the "true church" coming out from among those that have went the way of the world as they did during the reformation.

 

Roger that. You agree with what I said about the formation of the global church?

 

Yes, I know there is an attempt to do so. The last Pope did more towards that than anyone I know. He attempted to get the Orthodox in Russia and also all Catholics are lessing their attacks on all other denominations. I also notice all main stream leaders of Baptist and others have lessened their attacks on the Catholics and attempting every way they can to justify them.

 

another aspect to all this is that Rome itself had many many divisions within herself.... and that it wasn't until the Council of Trent that Rome, as an entire body really apostatized and formally held, as an entire body, to a false gospel as they hardened their position in the anathematizing of the Reformers. Now I am not saying that Rome newer had any significant theological problems prior to Trent or anything like that, clearly they did. But I am saying that even within Rome prior to Trent their were smatterings here and there of folks who held to salvation by faith alone.... Luther, as an Augustinian monk, did not develop his theology in a vacuum, and Pascal and his involvement with the Jansenists (and strong opposition to the Jesuits!) also proved that there were some significant alternative views on the nature of God, salvation, etc, broiling within Rome. So I see that many Catholics today think of "Rome" as some monolithic entity that has always existed, and this is plainly historically mistaken. The "Roman Catholic Church" that some have taken to always exist never came fully into existence until after Trent.

At any rate... yes... if we must speak in terms of a "mother church" then manifestly, we are speaking of the church that was originally "birthed", and this church was prior to the formation of the ecclesiastical body that eventually also became a very strongly political body, and that which eventually became known as the Roman Catholic Church. Rome was "birthed" from Constantine’s efforts to unite the church in order to insure political stability which eventuated in some creeds that Protestants gladly can subscribe to.... the sprawling apostate body that eventually became known as Rome took many hundreds of years to develop, and thus, even in a purely historical sense, could never technically be called the mother church. The mother church was birthed by Jesus as He spoke of the New Covenant to be ushered in by His perfect life, death on the Cross, His ascension, and the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This was the birth of the church.

As an aside, any alarm that signals the danger of modern Protestantism’s slide into apostasy by making light of the doctrines raised during the Reformation is a cry that must not be minimized, and must be heard by all those who believe and insist that the doctrines of grace must continue to be considered the doctrine that is the standing or falling of the church. Arminianism itself is part of the apostasy of the modern church, which is why Toplady could well call Arminianism “The Road to Rome”. http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/AugustusToplady RoadToRome.htm

Blessings,
Ken

 

From what I've heard, this Pope is doing even more. I'd also like to know what you think about the movement going on on the Protestant side but maybe we shouldn't hijack the thread. One tidbit, FWIW, I see the Chuck Colson/Rick Warren union as an ecumenical move, among other things, that will not omit Catholicism.

:Fish:

 

Which is why I said there is no mother church earlier. Jesus created or 'birthed' the church. We wouldn't call Him 'mother'. I don't see that the church that Jesus birthed, 'birthed' anything. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong ...

:Fish:

 

Something about Chuck Colson that don't sit well with me. I see most of the main stream that end up on the TV programs not willing to be really honest about anything. They are very suttle about "Jesus being the way the truth and the life". They stumble all over themselves trying not to offend the Jews, Catholics, Muslims. Everyone wants to be "politically correct" nowadays and wonder how we would do in front of the whole world. Would we "hold back" as they do or what?

 

It'll be interesting to watch and see what happens.

 

They both have a big following and influence in the world. I guess Colson spends most of his time in the prisons.

 

so far as I know, Colson is not minimizing the theological differences between Rome and Protestantism, he was just calling for a unified effort in combating secular issues, for instance, joining together against abortion or helping the poor... I am not saying that I agree with ECT or anything like that, but, we ought not confuse attempts to join efforts on social evils as an automatic indication of weakening theological views on the Protestant side. We ought to take each Protestant on an individual basis rather then lumping anyone and everyone who signed the declaration together as all compromising their theological beliefs. for instance, it seems that JI Packer is every bit as solid a Protestant as ever, even though he signed the declaration.... in fact, some evangelicals put together another document to make sure that everyone knew that when they signed the ECT, this is no way reflected their abandonment of the theology they hold dear.

blessings,
Ken

blessings,
Ken

 

I really was kinda of thinking out loud. I do wonder sometimes as I listen to some of them when confronted with subjects that are not popular how they squirm to keep from offending. I was thinking out loud and wondering if we would do the same. I doubt any of us would be so bold as we are on BB. I don't mean we would deny our beliefs we just would dance around the questions maybe, just wondering.

 

What did the church of Jerusalem become after the early church and before the Reformation?

 

Do you have a reference which supports the Anabaptist split from the Catholic Church in 325?

 

Yeah, good post there, I don't know of any specific action by Colson. The alliance of Colson & Warren that I refer to is recent and has nothing to do with the ECT. At this point, last I heard, they are probably closer to an alliance with the United Nations than the RCC. But it's not a big jump from there ......

I'll try to run down some links tomorrow.

 

Re: straight and narrow

I have been gone for a while but wanted to answer your question. I realize that history is subject to a certain amount of bias simply because we were not there and are now limited in our research to what has been written before. But I have read considerably not exhaustively on the topic and offer my personal views.

I would also say as always I am ready and willing to learn so rebuttal is welcome. Here goes...


Actually the separation occurred much sooner than 325 but that date is merely a reference to a time frame. After the battle of the Milvian Bridge in approximately 312 and after the council of Nicea that was convened by Constantine who used his self proclaimed authority as Pontifex Maximus in 325 the riff between those who saw what was happening within the church and those who were encouraging the changes and accepting them whole heartedly became nearly impassable and it is from this point on that Romanism moves to insure her doctrine of salvation by works and those opposed must separate from the pagan system which was once the pure church.

In fact Vetter, Armitage, Sargeant and Terry attribute the first break away to be by the Montanists around 150 A.D. The Roman Synod in 257 excommunicated Novatian also referred to later as Cathari, and the Donatist's show up on the scene in the early 300's. The Donatist’s took a strict separation stand and pulled completely away from the once pure now corrupted church (see John T Christian, History of the Baptists chapter 3 The struggle against corruption) as follows.

“That which distinguishes the present case is, the reaction, proceeding out of the essence of the Christian church, and called forth, in this instance, by a peculiar occasion, against the confounding of the ecclesiastical and political elements; on which occasion, for the first time, the ideas which Christianity, as opposed to the papal religion of the state, had first made men distinctly conscious of, became an object of contention within the Christian church itself, — the ideas concerning universal, inalienable human rights; concerning liberty of conscience; concerning the rights of free religious conviction. Thus the Bishop Donatus, of Carthage, in 347, rejected the imperial commissioners, Paulus and Marcarius, with the acclamation: “Quid est imperatori cum ecclesia?” (Optatus, Milev., De Schismati Donat. 1. iii. c. 3). And truly indeed the emperor should not have had anything to do with the control of the church. The Donatist Bishop Petilian, in Africa, against whom Augustine wrote, appealed to Christ and the apostles who never persecuted. “Think you,” says he, “to serve God by killing us with your hand? Ye err, if ye, poor mortals, think this; God has not hangmen for priests. Christ teaches us to bear wrong, not to revenge it.” The Donatist bishop Gaudentius says: “God appointed prophets and fishermen, not princes and soldiers, to spread the faith.”

 

Grace and Peace Everyone,

This is actually where I could get some real help.

From my reading of the development of Christianity, especially, in the early first hundred years or so it took the leadership of the Church to establish the doctrines we that for granted today.

I have a hard time dismissing the neccesity of the Church of Rome and her early popes and that of Constantinople and her early emperiors.

If these guys where wrong then we honestly have to seriously revisit things like the Trinity, the Nature of Jesus Christ, the canon of the Bible etc. There were and are differing views on these matters and pretty sophisticated arguments for and against.

If these institutions were 'Pagan' are we going down a line of reasoning that ultimately dismantles Christianity as Western Culture has largely done?

I can appreciate Sola Scriptura and the other doctrines of the Reformation but we do recognize that even these are developments in Christianity. The same early Church Fathers we quote to establish Sola Scriptura are also quoted establishing doctrines we deny. We accept and deny based on our established Baptist exegesis which is a development. Perhaps one which we all agree with and accept but one developed none-the-less.

I accept Scripture as my sole authority not because I don't believe tradition didn't play a role in the development of the Church and Doctrine but because the Chruch and Doctrine can't be trusted to 'not' evolve into something which is 'not' authentically Christian. At least that is where I am right now but I'd like to hear how you guys and gals might address this.

I'm not a highly schooled Theology student but I've read a bit of history and I dialogue with Muslims who used this kinda vague Christian history stuff to undermined modern exegesis to interpret the Bible.

Thanks.