Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Calling all Catholics.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calling all Catholics.

    What convinces you that the Catholic Church is the original church founded by Jesus? Being raised Catholic? Being a convert to the Catholic Church?
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  • #2
    I am a convert to the Catholic Church, but that's what happens if you start out protestant but then becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus.

    Comment


    • #3
      Beautiful, complex, coherent theology. The idea of visible signs of unity among Christians and of consistent historical witness.
      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, all trace their origins back to Jesus and his apostles or disciples', 'though things are a little fuzzy in the first couple of centuries. 'Catholic' only means 'according to/throughout the whole' (καθ᾽ ὅλος). You can even see the Greek and English word for “whole” within the word catholic. Originally, the word church was used for individual, local gatherings, but any concern, missionary or pastoral, for all believers throughout the world would be the origins of the catholic church. Those who seek to recognize their communion with all Christians throughout the world are catholic; those who seek to claim legitimacy only for an exclusivist group that refuses to recognize the status of other groups as true Christians are not particularly catholic, but rather sectarian in some sort. The rest is just politics.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          I am a convert to the Catholic Church, but that's what happens if you start out protestant but then becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus.
          Thank you. Please, can you give some specific as to why you think this?

          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
          Beautiful, complex, coherent theology. The idea of visible signs of unity among Christians and of consistent historical witness.
          Thank you. Please, can you give some specific as to why you believe this?
          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, all trace their origins back to Jesus and his apostles or disciples', 'though things are a little fuzzy in the first couple of centuries. 'Catholic' only means 'according to/throughout the whole' (καθ᾽ ὅλος). You can even see the Greek and English word for “whole” within the word catholic. Originally, the word church was used for individual, local gatherings, but any concern, missionary or pastoral, for all believers throughout the world would be the origins of the catholic church. Those who seek to recognize their communion with all Christians throughout the world are catholic; those who seek to claim legitimacy only for an exclusivist group that refuses to recognize the status of other groups as true Christians are not particularly catholic, but rather sectarian in some sort. The rest is just politics.
            Can you support this (catholic) from the Apostolic authority known as Holy Scripture?
            . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Can you support this (catholic) from the Apostolic authority known as Holy Scripture?
              Not sure what you're asking. I was just giving the meaning of the word 'catholic'. Do etymologies require biblical authority? Or are you asking about whether or not various ancient churches trace their origins back to apostles? The gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus gave authority to all apostles what he had previously given first to Peter, as the rock upon which he would build his church, thus Peter was considered the first among equals, a primacy of honor at least, though politically popes have tried to exercise other kinds of primacy. So it would seem that the author and community of the gospel of Matthew traced its origins back to the authority of Jesus, Peter, and the apostles. That good enough for you?
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Thank you. Please, can you give some specific as to why you believe this?
                The intersections and resonances between ecclesiology and mariology are pretty cool.
                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                  The intersections and resonances between ecclesiology and mariology are pretty cool.
                  How so? Thanks.
                  . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    Not sure what you're asking. I was just giving the meaning of the word 'catholic'. Do etymologies require biblical authority? Or are you asking about whether or not various ancient churches trace their origins back to apostles? The gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus gave authority to all apostles what he had previously given first to Peter, as the rock upon which he would build his church, thus Peter was considered the first among equals, a primacy of honor at least, though politically popes have tried to exercise other kinds of primacy. So it would seem that the author and community of the gospel of Matthew traced its origins back to the authority of Jesus, Peter, and the apostles. That good enough for you?
                    My agreement was not an essential here. Rather the arguments as to why you believe as you do were. Thanks.

                    If you were to contrast the view between Peter being the rock and an opposing view that the revelation the Father gave Peter that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God was the rock. How would you support the former against the latter view? Thanks.
                    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      How so? Thanks.
                      Check out chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html), the Vatican II Constitution on the Church.
                      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        My agreement was not an essential here. Rather the arguments as to why you believe as you do were. Thanks.

                        If you were to contrast the view between Peter being the rock and an opposing view that the revelation the Father gave Peter that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God was the rock. How would you support the former against the latter view? Thanks.
                        First, I would not necessarily endorse an artificial dichotomy between the two views that you mention. When in the history of the church is this dichotomy first introduced? That the person of Peter himself (and his faith) was considered important seems obvious from the fact that he continued to bear the name Cephas & Peter, which prior to this time was not a name in Aramaic or Greek. Even Paul, who was perhaps not the greatest fan of Peter and other apostles, refers to Peter by these names. And he bears the same witness to Peter's authority, and that of others among the earlier apostles, by going to visit Peter for two weeks and then later presents more developed and mature gospel preaching before Peter and the pillars of the church to confirm that he was not and had not been running in vain in his ministry. Paul was very conscious and perhaps even a bit defensive of his own calling by God himself and his own status as an apostle, but he has no problem acknowledging this sense of seeking confirmation of his gospel.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          First, I would not necessarily endorse an artificial dichotomy between the two views that you mention. When in the history of the church is this dichotomy first introduced? That the person of Peter himself (and his faith) was considered important seems obvious from the fact that he continued to bear the name Cephas & Peter, which prior to this time was not a name in Aramaic or Greek. Even Paul, who was perhaps not the greatest fan of Peter and other apostles, refers to Peter by these names. And he bears the same witness to Peter's authority, and that of others among the earlier apostles, by going to visit Peter for two weeks and then later presents more developed and mature gospel preaching before Peter and the pillars of the church to confirm that he was not and had not been running in vain in his ministry. Paul was very conscious and perhaps even a bit defensive of his own calling by God himself and his own status as an apostle, but he has no problem acknowledging this sense of seeking confirmation of his gospel.
                          Listen, there are more than one view which denies that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His church. I have held two of those views. That Christ was that Rock was one of them and now the view is the personal revelation given the believer. As in the case of Peter (Matthew 16:17; John 6:45). I would be interested in your refutation of the different views that contradict your church's view that it was built upon Peter. But you do not need to do that here.
                          Last edited by 37818; 05-24-2014, 05:07 PM.
                          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Listen, there are more than one view which denies that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His church. I have held two of those views. That Christ was that Rock was one of them and now the view is the personal revelation given the believer. As in the case of Peter (Matthew 16:17; John 6:45). I would be interested in your refutation of the different views that contradict your church's view that it was built upon Peter. But you do not need to do that here.
                            I'm still curious why you feel it necessary to endorse a dichotomy between the person of Simon Cephas (Peter) and his personal faith in the revelation granted to him? Can you point to the origin of this dichotomy in the history of Christian thought? Where do you first see anyone saying Cephas is not the rock but his faith is the rock? Who introduced this dichotomy? Until you present an adequate description of this view, I'm not inclined to refute something that is perhaps not adequately understood by either one of us. Give me the origin of the idea. I may indeed very well agree with it, depending upon how it is expressed. I do not disagree with Mt 16,17 or Jn 6,45, if you are trying to say that these verses are the origin of this dichotomy.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              I'm still curious why you feel it necessary to endorse a dichotomy between the person of Simon Cephas (Peter) and his personal faith in the revelation granted to him?
                              Personally my current view is "the rock" is the revelation (v.17) given Peter upon which Christ is building His church.

                              Can you point to the origin of this dichotomy in the history of Christian thought?
                              It is my view that was origial to Christian thought. It changed with interpretation that Peter was the rock. Only after the reformation did what was deemed Christian thought to reconsider, in what is in my view the truth.

                              Where do you first see anyone saying Cephas is not the rock but his faith is the rock?
                              In the Greek text it does not say that. Petros, masculine, a stone (John 1:42) is the rock. So I do not hold that Peter's faith is the rock, rather God's personal revelation to the believer (John 6:45). As for the rock being Peter's faith is post reformation, as far as I know.
                              Who introduced this dichotomy?
                              Again in my view, it always existed.
                              Until you present an adequate description of this view, I'm not inclined to refute something that is perhaps not adequately understood by either one of us.
                              It is in that text, what the text does and does not say.
                              Give me the origin of the idea. I may indeed very well agree with it, depending upon how it is expressed. I do not disagree with Mt 16,17 or Jn 6,45, if you are trying to say that these verses are the origin of this dichotomy.
                              OK, then let us look at the reason for believing Peter is that rock v.18
                              . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X