Skip to comments.Catholic Biblical Apologetics:Christ instituted only 1 church..formally..specifically..visible one.
Posted on 02/18/2010 6:58:38 PM PST by Salvation
This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.
This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:
The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.
Christ instituted only one church, and that society was both formally and specifically a visible one.
Would you argue that all it takes to be a Christian is membership in a church/denomination?
If so, how do you arrive at that Biblically?
If not, then you would agree that any given church (regardless of rather it's catholic or any other) will have attendees mixed between "real" Christians (sheep) and false Christians (goats).
So does that church then lose it's standing as part of the "church" (body of Christ)? Or is the "church" wherever there are true believers regardless of the presence of others who are not?
If you agree with that, then I submit that the "church" is anywhere there are true Christians, regardless of affiliation. Paul wrote to the church in this location or that location...but it was one church, and the connecting cord was not a denomination but a shared relationship with the Father through Christ Jesus.
I submit that wherever there are 2 or more true Christians there is a "church", and that happens all over the world and it happens in catholic churches, in lutheran church, in independent churches, in non-denominational churches.
What makes one part of the "church" is Jesus, not a structure, physical or political.
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: Apologetics Without Apology
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: An Incomplete Picture
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: Dearly Beloved Catholic Brothers and Sisters
Being Catholic and Christian: Faith and Salvation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics:Being Catholic & Christian:Faith and Salvation-Authoriative
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Being Catholic & Christian: Apostolic Confessions of Faith
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Post-Apostolic Confessions of Faith
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Salvation: A Biblical Portrait
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Salvation: "Being Saved"
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Catholic Response to "Are You Saved?"
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Knowledge of Salvation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Faith and Works
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Process of Christian Initiation
The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic: Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached an end-times kingdom but one already existing on earth
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached that the kingdom was primarily spiritual and internal but also visible and external.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ called and founded an exclusive, inner core group of twelve men called the "apostles."
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ committed His very mission to this twelve man inner core group, his Apostles, alone.
Christ gave to the Twelve, the Apostles, the power of ruling, teaching and sanctifying.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: This same church Christ willed to endure until the end of the world.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ instituted only one church, and that society was both formally and specifically a visible one.
These verses do not demonstrate that God instituted “one church” if by that it is meant the Roman Catholic Church.
The next part of this series might answer your question.
The Marks of the Church
I would say that Baptism is more important than a church — and of course, in my estimation, a baptized person is baptized “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (A Catholic formulat, BTW.)
Otherwise, it is not a valid baptism.
You are aware that the Catholic Church does recognize those baptisms that are properly done, don’t you?
The RCC takes Matt 16:18 out of its context, and makes a false doctrine out of it. That was NOT the question Jesus was asking, nor was it the context of Peter’s answer. Read the whole exchange.
Truth is not what we want it to be (by twisting Scripture): it is what it is.
“If you agree with that, then I submit that the “church” is anywhere there are true Christians, regardless of affiliation.”
I accept your submission as most accurate....at least in my book!
I don't normally follow the religion forum stuff, but I'll try to keep an eye out.
I would say that Baptism is more important than a church and of course, in my estimation, a baptized person is baptized In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (A Catholic formulat, BTW.) Otherwise, it is not a valid baptism.
I agree with you that baptism is more important than membership in a church (not to suggest that fellow-shipping isn't important). Although I think the formulat you specify is preferable I wouldn't be so dogmatic as to say that a baptism is invalid if someone accidentally omits a word. I don't believe Jesus' baptism utilized that exact formulat.
You are aware that the Catholic Church does recognize those baptisms that are properly done, dont you?
I was raised as a catholic as a child and I thought at the time one needed to be a member of the catholic church to be considered a "real" Christian by the catholic church...although that was quite some time ago and it could have been changed/updated and/or my memory could be faulty on it.
In any case, I wasn't really trying to challenge your posts, I just thought I'd ask a question on this one.
Thanks...and I submit that, at least in one respect then, that at this board there is...church. God bless.
How are you twisting it? To your bias?
**I don’t believe Jesus’ baptism utilized that exact formulat.**
We really don’t know those words, do we. Not in Holy Scripture. But my priest tells me that we will know all things when we arrive in heaven. Sounds good to me.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Very true. And I'm not in the least concerned about the exact wording for Jesus...and to be honest, while I think your wording is excellent and scriptural, I believe anyone can get dunked but it's the faith that seals the deal...and is, in fact, preeminent. And I say that not to diminish the importance of baptism. Although I'm sure you've heard the old argument about the thief on the cross who wasn't baptized as an example of what I'm suggesting.
But bottom line, I don't think we're in any disagreement.
“These verses do not demonstrate that God instituted one church if by that it is meant the Roman Catholic Church.”
What do they demonstrate then? Why NOT the Universal (Catholic) Church?
**but it’s the faith that seals the deal**
Or the faith of the parents and the godparents in the case of infant baptism.
If you agree with that, then I submit that the "church" is anywhere there are true Christians, regardless of affiliation.
But what if a true believer is one who accepts the authority that Jesus Christ gave to the apostles and is now exercised by their legitimate successors the Catholic bishops; one who accepts the teaching of Jesus Christ regarding the sacraments given to the apostles and preserved by the Catholic Church?
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I do not believe anyone's salvation is dependent upon someone else's faith.
Let me ask you thinks...say a baby is born and all relatives are killed in one fell swoop by an earthquake or some other disaster and then the baby dies. Do you believe God will address the needs of that baby's salvation, or are they damned because they lacked the relatives?
If you say God can and will provide for that baby's salvation then why do you believe in some cases God wouldn't and the salvation of that baby is dependent upon relatives?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not negating any value of relatives praying for a baby, but I believe it's God who saves, not the godparents.
That is not supported in scripture. There are a number of passages that discuss salvation and none of them involve bishops or the catholic church...they involve faith, belief and baptism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.