The Catholic Church

[DHK]

You see as in the book of acts Deacon wasn't initially an established position. The position was created by the Apostles so they could keep to their primary duties of passing on the faith. acts 6:1-

The point is moot, as it still doesn't apply to the position of a bishop/pastor. Furthermore there is no evidence that those in Acts 6 were even deacons. They were men appointed to help the apostles. Their work was primarily "serving tables," that is, quite mundane.

So that position grew.

Learn: Positions don't grow; responsibilities grow!

Now I do agree that in the NT the word's were interchagably used Presbyteros and Episkopos however just like churches today and in the statement of the above example from acts we see that as the number of people grew in the church the necessity to spread out functions became very aparant.

That is you reading into the Scriptures something that is not there. The Bible teaches no such thing. Presbuteros and Episkopos are always used for different functions of the same office of the same person--always! Why are you trying to force your 20th century hierarchy into the simple Biblical paradigm of the first century.

The apostles couldn't stay and pastor because they were to be missionaries thus the term "apostles". They were sent to teach what Jesus had taught them.

The apostles weren't the pastors. James was the pastor. He was the half-brother of Jesus.

So at first Episkopos and the Presbytos are interchangeable use of the term but as their churches grew (just like today) responsibility for special functions got spread around. Today you see it in the many different "Pastors" you have the Music Pastor, the youth Pastor, but still there is the head Pastor who has greater authority than the Music and the Youth pastors.

And that part is biblically correct. In the Bible it is also known as a plurality of elders. Paul called the elders from Ephesus to Miletus. There was more than one. They are also called bishops or overseers in verse 28--The same group of people from Acts 20:17 in Acts 20:28.

So in the same way the Episkopos took on more administrative functions and had the Presbyteros perform supportive functions.

You can't prove that from the Bible. This is just your philosophy. They were the same person with different roles or responsibilities. Why don't you accept what the Bible teaches?

Its a natural growth of things just as it is today that you find in baptist churches that are larger than say 100 people. Which is why Clement is speaking specifically about the head pastor of Corinth when he writes his letter to the Corinthians Further we have Ignatius say Thus we see that at this point at the very end of the first century and the begining of the second century the church leadership progressed into 3 distinct leaders. the Episkopos, Presbyteros, and the Deaconate.

Perhaps he was wrong. It is a good reason not to rely on the ECF, which were wrong in many things. They aren't inspired. It is evident in the book of Acts that the elders and the bishops are the same people.

First of all that is not true. We see the Catholic Church as early as the end of the 1st Century as can be seen in the above quote from Ignatius.

The above quote does not refer to the RCC. It only SEEMS to be in agreement with your philosophy, and even then he didn't use the KJV, and didn't write in English. IOW, what you have is a translation of his work, and every translation loses meaning.

Until the workload became untennable as can be seen in Acts 6.

And then deacons help, as seen in Acts 6. Not very hard is it?

Not true. Throughout the bible starting with the OT and into the New there is always a demonstrable Hierarchy presented. Jesus at the top, next the Apostles with btw Peter always being listed first then the other disciples. Later you had the Apostles, then church leaders, and finally the layity.

This is ludicrous.
First the OT has nothing to do with the OT, when considering church polity.
Originally, they were a theocracy under God, and then a monarchy. The church is neither.
Secondly, what Paul describes in the NT is true for every local church, every local church being independent one of another.
Every Biblical local church has a pastor who has Christ as the head. The Bible is the foundation is the Bible. The Bible is in two parts: the prophets and the apostles--the authors of the Bible. Also Jesus Christ is called the chief cornerstone. Thus the church is built upon both the Word of God and Christ being the chief cornerstone. From that the church leaders of that local church play a part, each one having a different function. The whole thing is put together for you in 1Cor.12. Read the chapter and find out how the members of a local church function together. It was speaking of a local church where all the members could honor a member, could weep with a member, etc. This is impossible with either a universal church or even a denomination. It is only possible with a closely knit local church.

It's true. Why were the Apostles writings considered scripture? You'll make some statement such as that the writings were considered scripture because they were the inspired word of God. Agreeably that is true. However, how were they determined to be the inspired word of God? Because they matched up with direct apostolic teaching. In otherwords the churches didn't consider that the Apostles were just some nice wise guys that offered good advice but that they themselves and what they spoke were inspired by God as can be seen in Peter's letter

Peter happened to know which of Paul's letters were Scripture and which were not. They had that discernment from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit promised them "that He would lead them into all truth," that he would guide them, and bring all things into remembrance." Those promises related to the writing of Scripture. They taught the early church which was Scripture and which was not. It was not a council that taught the early church which was Scripture; it was the apostles that taught the early christians/churches what was Scripture. The RCC has this backwards.

Not true at all as can be seen in Acts 15. Accordingly, the letter they sent to Antioch could certainly have been ignored by that church and it would have been no less for it.

They could have. But it was the home church of Paul and they would have learned of it anyway. The way of salvation was clear. It was made clear by Paul wherever he went. It was Paul was bothered by the Judaizers. Read the book of Galatians. He makes this doctrine straight in that epistle without the decision made at council.

 

[DHK]

Clearly James and the Apostles certainly felt they had authority to tell Antioch how they must treat their gentile believers. Also note what Paul said to the Thessalonians and we can see direct apostolic authority in acts 16

As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey

There is no reference to the decision in Acts 15 only reference to Paul's own personal work.
Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Not at all. I'm rellying on personal witness of People who lived 2,000 years ago. As I have shown.

No you are not, you are reading into the Bible what you want to see, not what the Bible is actually teaching.

Actually, the RCC can trace itself right back to the apostles. Though there have been certain changes the deposit of faith never has.

No, it can't. It can only be traced back to the 4th century. There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, except possibly for his death. He wrote his epistles from Babylon. Paul rebuked this man as one who caused divisions. A timeline from the Bible itself can be established that he wasn't in Rome, but traveled extensively, and there was no greeting in an epistle written by Paul at a rather late date to Peter to the believers in Rome, although other prominent leaders were greeted. This is evidence that he was not in Rome as well.

They were united by faith. and only independent in the sense that it took a long time to get to each church and they didn't have phones, cars, or quick transportation. The fact that letters addressed to a specific church was considered to have universal relevance to all the churches and they copied and sent copies of apostolic letters only shows how united they were.

Yes, their faith was the Scriptures that they had which were circulated among them, even as Peter mentions Paul's writings. Jude tells them to "Contend for the faith," that body of doctrine that they had by the time that Jude wrote his letter (ca. 69 A.D.). They were independent, not denominational. Their faith was the same faith as taught by the apostles. In no way were the Catholic or RCC.

certainly Paul did and asked to exommunicate someone. Clearly by Clements letter he was speaking authoritatively.

He had authority in this church because he lived there for 18 months, had started the church and pastored it for that period of time. After leaving he appointed Appollos in his stead. It was only natural that in a time of crisis that they would look to him for guidance. He gave them an authoritative answer.
The key verse is found in 1Cor.7:1 "Now concerning the thing you wrote to me..."

No Peter gave more than just a testimony He set the standard and declared something dogmatically ie "it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are". Ie... Peter for the first time makes a clear dogmatic statement that gentiles are saved the same way the Jewish believers are. Peter set the Bar. Paul and Barnabas gave a testimony

You ignore the Scripture I gave you. You don't like the exposition of Scripture.
Even here is combating the heresy that they came together to discuss.
1. It is through grace (not works) of our Lord Jesus that we are saved.
2. Paul and Barnabas follow up with the same testimony.
3. They are all in agreement.

James made his decision based on the dogmatic stance of Peter and the testimoney to the work of the Holy Spirit by Paul and Barnabas as he states in his letter with the approval of the whole assembly.

However it was the decision of James wasn't it? He was the pastor of the church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

However it was the decision of James wasn't it? He was the pastor of the church.

Not his alone but as a council. Ie the first church council. Look how James refers to the authority it is "we" in acts 15

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization

and

we are writing

He uses the Authority of the Apostles and his combine making this dogmatic statement. Which is the council which is why Church councils are important in defining dogmatic statements.

 

[DHK]

Not his alone but as a council. Ie the first church council.

Get this straight. It wasn't a "Church Council!" It was a gathering of the apostles, some others, and the church was welcome to attend. It was not a church council. In fact the church itself had relatively little to do with it. The apostles came together. Some of the others. And James presided for he was the pastor.

Look how James refers to the authority it is "we" in acts 15 and

He is speaking about apostolic authority. Remember in Acts 8,

Acts 8:14-16 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

This is a book of transition. Apostolic authority was needed to verify the integrity of the gospel message. The gospel message in its purity had now the stamp of approval with all the apostles present including James, the half-brother of Jesus, a man well respected among all. The Judaizers could no longer influence the churches. With this decision other churches needed to point only to the apostles and their decisive decision at what the gospel was. It did not include circumcision and the law. That was the real issue. It was legalism in its purest form.

He uses the Authority of the Apostles and his combine making this dogmatic statement. Which is the council which is why Church councils are important in defining dogmatic statements.

It was not a church council, but a gathering of the apostles and some others included which took place at the church at Jerusalem. After all it was better they meet there than in desert of Sinai.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Get this straight. It wasn't a "Church Council!" It was a gathering of the apostles, some others, and the church was welcome to attend. It was not a church council.

Actually it was. A church council is the gathering of church leaders to make a dogmatic decision. And I have it straight. Bible translators and scholars on the whole disagree with you which is why your bible even if it's a KJB will call that occurance in the bible a council. It was a church council and made a dogmatic decision regarding gentiles salvation and duties.

He is speaking about apostolic authority

Now you agree with apostolic authority over churches. So, which is it. Either they were authoritative or they were not.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have began a study on Catholics to find out if what they believe could possibly, possibly be true.

Here is my first question. Can the Catholics really trace their history back to Peter and were they the first Church? If so and the reformation didn't happen until the 1500's with Martin Luther, were all the people up until the reformation doomed?

Bottom line as regarding the RCC...

ONLY reason they can claim what they do as regards to doctrines and practices, theology, is due to them seeing additional "extra" revelation sources from God apart from the Bible... Same wayas sayMormons do...

Eliminate those sources, standing ONLY upon the Bible as the revelation of God...

RCC is basically OT isreal, trying to stamp on it NT terminology, as they have their versions o fthe High priest, priests, sacramrental ways to God etc!

teaching a false version of the true Gospel....

 

[DHK]

Actually it was. A church council is the gathering of church leaders to make a dogmatic decision. And I have it straight. Bible translators and scholars on the whole disagree with you which is why your bible even if it's a KJB will call that occurance in the bible a council. It was a church council and made a dogmatic decision regarding gentiles salvation and duties.
Now you agree with apostolic authority over churches. So, which is it. Either they were authoritative or they were not.

Let me give you a modern day example of IFB churches so that you can relate to all the IFB churches of Paul's time.

Recently we ordained a pastor. There are about five IFB churches in our area. We do not have an association, convention, denomination, etc. We are all independent of each other. However all the pastors know each other on a personal level, and have some fellowship with each other usually on a one to one basis. We are independent churches that have no reason to unite together for any one function.

On this occasion, a pastor is ordained by a group of other pastors of like faith and order. The congregation of this pastor asked the pastor who had the largest facility to host this event. Why? Because though it was primarily a decision that would be made by just a small group of people others were invited to watch, primarily those of the church of the pastor to be ordained, and those of the church in which the person was being ordained, as well as other close friends.

The candidate had to read a doctrinal statement which he had prepared. Some questions were asked, but only by the committee of local pastors present. Others were present just to observe. The committee retreated to another room to discuss if he should be ordained. Does he fit the qualifications of a pastor? After much discussion the pastor of the hosting church explains to the congregation present the decision made and gives some additional comments. The candidate comes and kneels. The pastors lay hands on him; the pastors pray, and a document is signed by all of us to signify that he is ordained.

This is not a church council. It is an ordination "council".
It was a gathering of pastors in a church. They had to meet somewhere. It was better than in a field with minus 20 temperatures. Common sense prevails here. What church really didn't matter. It is also common sense that whatever church was used the pastor of that church would preside.

So it was in the NT. It was not a church council. The apostles came together. It was an apostolic decision. It was the decision that had authority. The apostles did not have authority over the churches. The decision was authoritative in doctrine. There was no authority over the churches. The Bible is our authoritative guide in like manner. We don't have different individuals involved in the running of our churches. There is only one person that has authority, and that is the pastor. This was a matter of doctrine, doctrine that countered falsity--legalism being spread by Judaizers.

 

[OldRegular]

RCC is basically OT isreal, trying to stamp on it NT terminology, as they have their versions of the High priest, priests, sacramrental ways to God etc!

Thanks for the above remarks. I have thought for a long time that the RCC was just the OT priesthood warmed over!

 

[OldRegular]

Well, that's understandable because Catholics were the first early Christians.

WM

So you are saying that "Universalists" were the first Christians. Is that the same as the Unitarian Universalists?

 

[Melanie]

Round and round the garden
Like a teddy bear
One step, two step
And you all fall down

 

[WestminsterMan]

The Catholic Church Catechism #836-843 deals with this question of the Catholic Church and its relationship to those outside of its membership. The CCC claims that only those who have been baptized and partaken of the sacraments of the Catholic Church are "FULLY INCORPORATED into the society of the Church."

Protestants and their baptism are listed among those who are not "FULLY INCORPORATED" of which includes

1. #839 - "non-Christians"
2. #840 - Muslims
3. #842 - Other non-Christian religions

The CCC claims that the Catholic church is "JOINED" in many ways with all these groups outside the Church including Protestants.

However, she even restricts this second rate union with Protestants based upon whether they are "properly baptized" (#838).

According to the Counsel of Trent, Roman Catholics deny not merely the baptism of all Protestants who believe in Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone but deny their salvation in total because Rome anathamize all who embrace this primary Reformation doctrine.


The Council of Trent, Canon 12 on Justification, reads:

“2.CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed" .”


Hence, Rome rejects the baptism of Baptists because justification by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE is a cardinal teaching of Baptists. What about Presbyterians and Lutherans and many other groups that hold to this same truth?

Can Catholics accept the baptism of those they anathematize???

As long as a baptism is performed using the Trinitarian formula, the RCC excepts that baptism as valid. End of discussion!

WM

 

[DHK]

As long as a baptism is performed using the Trinitarian formula, the RCC excepts that baptism as valid. End of discussion!

WM

Why have they never rescinded the Council of Trent?

 

[WestminsterMan]

Why have they never rescinded the Council of Trent?

I don't know, but I suspect your understanding of the Council of Trent (as pointed out by Thinkingstuff) is simply wrong. Thus, there is no need for the RCC to rescind it. "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." Eph. 4:4-6.
Just sayin...

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Bottom line as regarding the RCC...

ONLY reason they can claim what they do as regards to doctrines and practices, theology, is due to them seeing additional "extra" revelation sources from God apart from the Bible... Same wayas sayMormons do...

Eliminate those sources, standing ONLY upon the Bible as the revelation of God...

RCC is basically OT isreal, trying to stamp on it NT terminology, as they have their versions o fthe High priest, priests, sacramrental ways to God etc!

teaching a false version of the true Gospel....

Not the same way the Mormons do. The canon of the NT wasn't established until the 4th Century and the first recorded list of the current NT that we hold as canon was by Athenasius. There is a lot of history showing the perspective of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church Doesn't rely on "extra-biblical" documents but on the Apostolic Deposit of Faith which can be traced straight back to the Apostolic writings. What the other documents provide like Clement, Ignatius, Justin, Tertullian, and the rest is a witness to what was believed. The Nicean Creed is prominant among the Church because it was a council like the one in acts 15 regarding orthodoxy against Arius (whom DhK probably thinks was a baptist) where the many church leaders came to a decision of orthodox belief.
Mormonism is claimed to have come (much like Islam) from Golden Tablets provided by the Angel Moron...er... excuse me Maroni. Prior to the 1800's there is no evidence to anything like Mormonism where Catholic faith has 2,000 years of history to support its position.

 

[DHK]

I don't know, but I suspect your understanding of the Council of Trent (as pointed out by Thinkingstuff) is simply wrong. Thus, there is no need for the RCC to rescind it. "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." Eph. 4:4-6.
Just sayin...

WM

The Council of Trent, among many other things, states this:

3. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,9 who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;10 or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.11 Whence that declaration: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;12 and that other: As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0020_15._Council_of_Trent.html

The RCC supposedly claims to accept any Protestant baptism today. Walter claims they have accepted his, which I presume was Baptist. But no Baptist would ever agree to the above. In fact the above curses the Baptist position on baptism.

So I ask again: "Why wasn't this rescinded?" if the RCC has supposedly changed their position. The real fact of the matter is that they haven't changed at all.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Council of Trent, among many other things, states this:
http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0020_15._Council_of_Trent.html

The RCC supposedly claims to accept any Protestant baptism today. Walter claims they have accepted his, which I presume was Baptist. But no Baptist would ever agree to the above. In fact the above curses the Baptist position on baptism.

So I ask again: "Why wasn't this rescinded?" if the RCC has supposedly changed their position. The real fact of the matter is that they haven't changed at all.

So you are claiming that because trent says the merits of Jesus Christ can apply to infants in order that they be saved you believe the RCC is wrong? Then the logical conclusion is Jesus cannot save infants and that all infants who die go to the grave without the saving grace of Jesus Christ! I'm sorry DHK. As having been a protestant and a baptist at a time in my life, I never believed that.

 

[The Biblicist]

So you are claiming that because trent says the merits of Jesus Christ can apply to infants in order that they be saved you believe the RCC is wrong? Then the logical conclusion is Jesus cannot save infants and that all infants who die go to the grave without the saving grace of Jesus Christ! I'm sorry DHK. As having been a protestant and a baptist at a time in my life, I never believed that.

"if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema"

Baptists as individuals, as a denomination composed of individuals, their articles of faith as Baptists, all openly and vocally deny the merits of Jesus christ are applied to adults or infants by baptism! According to the council of trent they as an denomination are "anathama"

Hence, Rome accepts baptism from those they claim to be anathma??? Let us then go down the line and see if Rome is consistent in regard to everything else they anathematize and see if they receive into their church everything else they anathemtize????????

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema"

Baptists as individuals, as a denomination composed of individuals, their articles of faith as Baptists, all openly and vocally deny the merits of Jesus christ are applied to adults or infants by baptism! According to the council of trent they as an denomination are "anathama"

Hence, Rome accepts baptism from those they claim to be anathma??? Let us then go down the line and see if Rome is consistent in regard to everything else they anathematize and see if they receive into their church everything else they anathemtize????????

Think about it this way. If you deny the merits of Jesus are applied to infant or adults then his suffering "by his stripes we are healed", and his death on the cross "Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" and again "the message of the cross" Then no one can be saved.

Now baptism is efficasious in that it does as it says. Paul compares it to circumcision. Peter says to be saved we must repent and be baptized. Jesus himself was baptized to fulfill all righteousness as there was no need for him to be baptized but it fulfilled God's requirements as he is our example and we participate with him in his divine life. Its one of the many mysteries that the gospel presents. When we take scriptures as a whole we find that

Judaism and its fulfillment, Christianity, are heavy with matter, as it were. First we find creation itself, where solid matter was spoken into existence by the Word of God. Then redemption, beginign not with the wave of a spiritual wand, or with mere edicts pronounced from the sky, but with a whole panoply of sacred paraphernalia, from lamb's blood to thuribles - the Old Covenant is heavily physical. But then comes the New Covenant: we now excape into the purely spiritual and leave the physical behind, right? No. First a pregnancy and then a birth. Obstetrics and gynecology, right at the center of redemption. Fastin in the wilderness, water to wine, a crown of thorns, splinters and nails and blood - our eternal salvation achieved by grostequely physical means. But then spirituality, surely? No. A corpse resurrected; and then our human flesh taken up into the midmost mysteries of the eternal Godhead. - Thomas Howard "Lead Kindly Light"

and with regard to the mysteries (ie sacraments) such as baptism, that you don't believe, because then

This is understandable, since if you have a theology and a spirituality that stress the "inner" locale of piety, and understand salvation in terms of divine edicts, ... then naturally such unapologetically physical elements ... will fit only uneasily ino the scheme - Thomas Howard "Lead Kindly Light"

 

[The Biblicist]

Think about it this way. If you deny the merits of Jesus are applied to infant or adults then his suffering "by his stripes we are healed", and his death on the cross "Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" and again "the message of the cross" Then no one can be saved.

Now baptism is efficasious in that it does as it says. Paul compares it to circumcision. Peter says to be saved we must repent and be baptized. Jesus himself was baptized to fulfill all righteousness as there was no need for him to be baptized but it fulfilled God's requirements as he is our example and we participate with him in his divine life. Its one of the many mysteries that the gospel presents. When we take scriptures as a whole we find that and with regard to the mysteries (ie sacraments) such as baptism, that you don't believe, because then

"if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema"



The typical SPIN! This statement is clear that ANY PERSON who denies that such merits are applied "BY BAPTISM" are accursed.

Instead of honestly acknowledging that clear statement, you then place your spin on it in your first paragraph and try to philosophize it SEPARATE from baptism and then in your second paragraph you attempt to intepret and defend Rome's unbiblical view of baptism.

Typically you are attempting to change the subject from what the statement actually states unto a debate over baptism.

Now, I can go to the CCC and its statements on circumcision and then to Romans 4:11 and completely dismantle the whole Catholic false notion of sacraments - that is easy to do! However, I am not going to change lanes to a new topic here.

This statement by the council of Trent clearly and explicitly places Baptists and all evangelicals who stand with Baptists in regard to baptism to be anathamatized by Rome and yet Rome will accept the very ordinances of those they anathematize.

 

[Zenas]

This statement by the council of Trent clearly and explicitly places Baptists and all evangelicals who stand with Baptists in regard to baptism to be anathamatized by Rome and yet Rome will accept the very ordinances of those they anathematize.

Yes they will. Here's the answer to what you believe to be a paradoxical position:

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. CCC 1256.