Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did Jesus found a Church?
If so, what does that Church look like?
No he did not found a Church as YOU define it. He created no institution of men. He founded a following (ecclesia) of children of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
It looks like people following "true religion."
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRCarson
Can you be more specific?
How can I find a body of people following "true religion"?
Are there any characteristics that I should be looking for in that "religion"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." You try to find one that is far less concerned with ideas about God than it is with how to live in love in community and with God.
Amen, nate! Still cannot rep you but this is a very cogent encapsulation of Christ's Gospel.
How can I find a body of people following "true religion"?
Are there any characteristics that I should be looking for in that "religion"?
I would expect that such a people would be led by God in the same way God has always led his people: By divine revelation. That is the characteristic that separates Israel from all other peoples in the OT and that is the very same characteristic that separates the Christianity led by the apostles from all other people. The followers of such a religion should all be actively seeking their own personal divine communication from God. Scripture would not be something that "used to happen but God stopped doing it." Scripture should be an ongoing thing.
If God intends for any religion to be His religion, then He would be leading it directly. To the extent that the RCC and its Pope were all too often bloodthirsty, corrupt, power-hungry and the very antithesis of all godly characteristics, I think the RCC has effectively eliminated itself from qualifying. The truly amazing thing: The Pope and RCC can commit any combination of mortal sins against God in heaven for an unlimited period of time -- and according to Catholicism still remain God's only true and sanctioned Church and people. That does not make the RCC an evil institution. It makes them just another church claiming what every church claims: "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." No more and no less Christian than any of the other 43,000 Christian denominations.
If, on the other hand, true religion is something that is a completely individual affair as many have said, then it still comes down to divine revelation and communication directly from God above.
If God intends for any religion to be His religion, then He would be leading it directly. To the extent that the RCC and its Pope were all too often bloodthirsty, corrupt, power-hungry and the very antithesis of all godly characteristics, I think the RCC has effectively eliminated itself from qualifying. The truly amazing thing: The Pope and RCC can commit any combination of mortal sins against God in heaven for an unlimited period of time -- and according to Catholicism still remain God's only true and sanctioned Church and people. That does not make the RCC an evil institution. It makes them just another church claiming what every church claims: "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." No more and no less Christian than any of the other 43,000 Christian denominations.
Well, you have the gist of it correct, but you arrive at the wrong conclusion. Here's why:
THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY
If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?
Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.
Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew "from the beginning" who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a "devil" (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.
Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on "Moses’ seat" found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)
"Moses’ seat" is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as "hypocrites," "blind guides," "blind fools," "serpents," and a "brood of vipers." But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.
If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to "obey and do everything" the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.
In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:
Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' (Matthew 13:24-30)
Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.
The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.
Jesus taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Not true. I understand why he would believe in God . . . but not the frequently anachronistic (anti-Christ and evil) dogma of the RCC.
The reason is obvious: You did not grow up in the same circumstances as George Lemaitre. You have a different set of memes and you have discovered God by a mystic phenomenon.
You are a mystic with no religion. You need to read the works of the greatest mystics of all time: Saint Theresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross.
The reason is obvious: You did not grow up in the same circumstances as George Lemaitre. You have a different set of memes and you have discovered God by a mystic phenomenon.
You are a mystic with no religion. You need to read the works of the greatest mystics of all time: Saint Theresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross.
God promised that he would never abandon Israel many many times in the OT. The oft unwritten expectation was always that they remain righteous and keep their covenant with God. They failed and thereby unwittingly abandoned God. For comparison sake, what does the RCC's track record look like? So while this passage does not actually promise the generations following the apostles that they would be his people in perpetuity, let's just imagine that is what Christ was saying: God has always reserved the right to "divorce" a people that is unfaithful to him.
In any case, the promise of the Holy Spirit and promising the apostles that he would be with them is by no means a promise of anything at all to those who came after the apostles. The promise of the Holy Spirit is the promise of the Holy Spirit and nothing more.
Objection your honor! This is all just speculation!
Quote:
Moderator cut: Orphaned.
It beModerator cut: Orphaned the question: Why did the Lord stop sending more apostles? It's hard to answer that question. What we do know is that the apostles died out and that, according to the epistles of the apostles, there was significant deviation and rebellion against God everywhere in Christianity. The apostles were constantly stamping out such things.
In any case, if Peter intended the bishop of Rome as his successor, then why did he never mention it? Why didn't any other apostle mention it? You have provided your very biased version of things that supports your point of view. From the RCC perspective, if you don't know where Peter is at any given time, it automatically means Peter is in Rome. It is no doubt comforting if you happen to be the RCC. But it's also making things up to support your predetermined position. What you lack is any passage in the NT where anyone bothers to mention that Peter is in Rome, is heading to Rome, has just arrived from Rome or is leading the Church at Rome. The massive scale of that omission in the NT record would lead any completely unbiased observer to conclude that Peter was probably never in Rome for any significant amount of time and most certainly not the reigning as bishop there.
You believe it because you believe the RCC and are willing to make that leap of faith in the face of a complete lack of evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRCarson
Moderator cut: Orphaned
Already covered this above. God's people are promised by God to be his people forever, but this arrangement has always been conditional upon their righteousness and obedience to God. Did the Holy Spirit depart from the entire Church after the apostles? I very much doubt it. Divine guidance via the Holy Spirit is entirely based on an individual's own willingness to listen to it and follow the Spirit's direction. But the all important detail that is missing from the post-apostolic church is continuing revelation, scripture and divine guidance. Instead, we see the Christians of that age trying to explain away God's obvious silence and selling it was "God's new program." Once again, we see a people arrogant enough to believe that they are so much better than any people in any prior age that direct guidance from God is no longer needed. "The day of Pentecost has come and gone. The Holy Spirit had been sent as promised. And yet, God still had a lot more to say by way of direct communications, visions, and personal appearances. If the Holy Spirit was the intended replacement for God revealing himself directly, why didn't that happen immediately following Pentecost?
The mistake is to assume that the Holy Spirit replaces direct revelation from God. Christ never said any such thing. The Holy Spirit is one of many mediums whereby direct revelation from God can come to us. It is in fact the primary medium of divine revelation in every age of human history. And God has never given up the right to appear to his children whenever and however he wishes, just as he reserves the right to reject his people when they aren't listening to him.
Was the Holy Spirit a significant guiding force in Christianity from 100 AD to today? Yes I think so. But I also think that far too much "divine truth" was made up on the spot and even borrowed directly from paganism. The claim that the RCC got everything right after the death of John -- especially considering the state of Christendom at the time -- just isn't a credible assertion. We know that the Church and later the RCC got things wrong. Lots of things. The greater task is trying to discern between when they got things right and when they got things wrong.
Not true. I understand why he would believe in God . . . but not the frequently anachronistic (anti-Christ and evil) dogma of the RCC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
The reason is obvious: You did not grow up in the same circumstances as George Lemaitre. You have a different set of memes and you have discovered God by a mystic phenomenon.
You are a mystic with no religion. You need to read the works of the greatest mystics of all time: Saint Theresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross.
If you represented what the RCC was about, I might be inclined to listen. But Carson's dogmatism and magical thinking represents the RCC and that supports the evil hierarchy . . . so no thanks.
If you represented what the RCC was about, I might be inclined to listen. But Carson's dogmatism and magical thinking represents the RCC and that supports the evil hierarchy . . . so no thanks.
Well, Mystic. You've just illustrated why I think dogmatism does one thing very well: it alienates people. It puts people off from wanting to learn more.
Thankfully I read the mystics long before the internet was invented. Were I to discover the name of a Catholic mystic in the middle of many dogmatic, self-congratulatory declarations about the Catholic Church I'd have had no desire to find out anything about them.
Especially if those declarations were, as you have discerned, in support of a much-tarnished institution that is only beginning to find its way out of a very dark period.
This tiem I got to rep you!^ Some of those mystics and especially the ones Julian mentioned have some outstanding insights, even if they are sometimes filtered by their cultural heritage.
If you represented what the RCC was about, I might be inclined to listen. But Carson's dogmatism and magical thinking represents the RCC and that supports the evil hierarchy . . . so no thanks.
Not all catholics are the same. However, someone like you could flourish in Catholicism because you would be free to remain an intellectual within the mysticism of the church.
You think that a Catholic apologist is similar to a Sola Scriptura apologist, but that is something you perceive within a debate in the forum. In the background things are much more philosophical. As Catholics we do not want to leave behind out tradition because MAN without tradition is nothing.
Lemaitre reconciled his pioneering vies of the expansion of the universe with his Catholic tradition. This can be done quite easily, but you are not there yet.
That something is illogical in religion is no big deal because within the context of religion that is the way it is supposed to be. That does not mean you accept superstition like the Sola Scriptura people do.
In the end Catholicism become a vehicle to enhance your human condition. Trying to do this journey alone is not as much fun for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
