Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by tom » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:13 am

As for the question of whether the Roman Catholic Church is the kingdom of God, this can hardly be the case, since Paul tells us that "the kingdom of God is...righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom.14:17). Even if some Roman Catholics may personally experience these spiritual phenomena through Christ, while remaining within the Catholic Church, it remains clear that 1) some within the Catholic Church, historically, have known little of either righteousness nor peace, and 2) that many outside the Catholic Church have known these realities in their lives, through their faithfully following Jesus. The kingdom of God cannot be equated with any human institution, since it is "in the Holy Spirit," and no institution can be said to be always and seamlessly operating in the Spirit.
I don't get the anti-Roman Catholic attitude from this forum. I thought the forum was for all points of view as long as it could be justified in Scripture? Steve saying the RCC could not be the Kingdom because it is flawed makes no Scriptural sense!

David is a type of Jesus yet David is flawed! Jesus even tells us the Kingdom on earth will be flawed, (Matt 13 and Matt 25). I truly believe even when Christ comes a second time, earth and Humanity will be restored. But I still think we will be coming to Jesus for forgiveness because we are flawed people.
Perhaps you felt the need to lay these arguments out freshly for others at this forum, but I know you could not possibly have directed them toward me, since you and I have discussed every one of them at least twenty or thirty times each on the air over the past 11 years.

A primary problem in our communication is that I always answer your points by exegeting the scriptures, and you never answer my arguments. You just wait a few weeks or months, and then return and raise the same points again, as if we had never discussed them, and as if the ball was not already in your court to come back with a response.


Steve, my calls and now, thanks to Jim from Connecticut who invited me to this forum, have never been directed only at you. I hope others will see the RCC is Biblical. You state that by using exegesis you are right and I am wrong. If you are using exegesis it may not be done without some bias. That is 'Steve's' exegsis!
"Which church?" There is only one Church, under one Head. It is found wherever there are true followers of Jesus. Disputes can be brought before the segment of that church with which one is in regular contact. You might find this logistically impractical, or personally unacceptable, but you have never been able to show the scriptural defect in my reasoning.
So Karen from Portland should go to the LDS church and you have no right to rebuke her? "Scriptural Defect"!? Why did the Church in Antioch go to Jerusalem and assemble the 'Church' to give a definitive answer? According to you they should never had left Antioch. Paul and Barnabas should have resolved it!?
You wish to build your case upon a survey of Old Testament history—yet your survey is confusing. I am aware that Moses established a pastoral hierarchy under himself, but does Moses, in your analogy, represent Christ, or Peter? Since the apostles saw Jesus (not Peter) as a second Moses (see Acts 3:22-23; 7:37), I am assuming that you are making this same comparison. In that case, Korah would represent those who wish to overthrow Christ's leadership. Evangelicals have no such intention. They actually want to recover the leadership of Christ from the usurping "Korah" whose rule you advocate.
I am not saying Moses is a pre-figurement of Jesus or Peter. I bring Ex 18:13-26 to show an authoritative hierarchy. If Moses is a pre-figurement of Jesus then Jesus is showing us His authoritative hierarchy. Just as we see in Matt 18:18 and preformed in Acts 15.

Tom

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by steve » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:14 am

Tom,

Do you really pick up an "anti-Catholic attitude" at this forum? I guess I haven't read enough of the posts here at "Roman Catholicism" category, because I wouldn't have thought you would find such attitudes here. I hope you don't pick up an attitude against Catholics from me. I am not here to present attitudes, but arguments. You aren't opposed to that are you? Weighing and analyzing arguments from scripture are what Protestants find to be the best method of learning Christian truth. You should know enough about Protestants to be aware of that. To us it makes no sense to resort to extra-biblical arguments, or even to invalid biblical arguments, if better arguments from scripture are available. It has nothing to do with being anti-Catholic—at least not in my case. I am not so much anti-Catholic as I am anti-deception. If Catholic doctrines prove to be deceptive, then they can join the rubbish heap with the deceptive doctrines of other religious institutions. It's nothing personal at all.

You wrote:
Why did the Church in Antioch go to Jerusalem and assemble the 'Church' to give a definitive answer? According to you they should never had left Antioch. Paul and Barnabas should have resolved it!?
Actually, Barnabas and Paul had indeed resolved the issue of circumcision prior to going to Jerusalem, in Acts 15. In fact, according to Galatians 2:1ff, they had resolved that question even earlier, before they had made an even earlier trip to Jerusalem, in Acts 11. You don't seem to grasp what the Jerusalem Council was about.

The "Church of Antioch" did not go to the "Church of Jerusalem" for doctrinal guidance. Two apostles in Antioch went to discuss a matter with the other apostles, who happened to be accessible, in Jerusalem, at that time. Paul wasn't looking for anyone in Jerusalem to tell him what he was "authorized" to preach, or what was "orthodoxy."

The no-circumcision gospel had been revealed to Paul directly from Jesus Christ (Gal.1:11-12). Paul had taught it and he knew it was true, whether the others in Jerusalem knew it or not—in fact, he said that if even the other apostles—or an angel from heaven!— were to preach a gospel different from his, they should be anathematized (Gal.1:8-9). He did not respect the opinions of "the Jerusalem Church" more than he respected the revelation of Jesus Christ—as Paul put it, "whatever they [Peter and the other apostles] were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man" (Gal.2:6).

All of this was before the Council in Acts 15. They did not go there to have the "Church in Jerusalem" settle a theological question for them!

So why did they go? It was because certain men from Jerusalem had come to Antioch, falsely claiming that Paul's gospel had been denounced by James and the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-2, 24). Paul could hardly believe that this error existed among the apostles, but he was determined to get to the bottom of it and get a statement from them, straight from their mouths.

It would not have been pleasant for him to excommunicate them and pronounce them "anathema," but Paul's firm, public rebuke of Peter on another occasion gives us grounds to think Paul was the kind of man who would have followed through on it, if necessary. It would surely destroy the Body of Christ by dividing it into factions. I think he was sure that he would not have to do this, and that those who had brought the report were wrong.

However, the rest of the church in Antioch was getting confused, so a clear word of support for Paul's message from the Jerusalem apostles, in writing, was desirable, in order to silence, once-and-for-all, the false teachers who were lying about the position of the Jerusalem church, and thus "troubling" the Gentile believers.

Of course, the reports were wrong, and the apostles had never spoken against Paul's message—but neither had they ever made an official statement supporting it. The closest thing they had done to endorsing the idea of Gentiles being saved without circumcision was their response to Peter's report about the household of Cornelius. Their response was reluctantly favorable, but theologically unsophisticated (Acts 11:18).

In their ministry among the Jerusalem saints, they seldom had to think about the circumcision question, because all of their church members were already circumcised before their conversion. Now that the question was being brought to their door by Paul, and he was demanding a statement from them, some of the Pharisees in their church began to lobby for a ruling against Paul. It was a potentially explosive situation, so a leadership meeting was called to consider their response (Acts 15:6). Of course they sided with Paul. How could they have done otherwise, when they already had set the precedent of approving of the uncircumcised household of Cornelius? We read that the council heard from Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, with James officiating and drafting the final response. They allowed the Pharisaic party to present their arguments and concerns (v.7a), but the apostles weren't really trying to decide which view was right, but, rather, how to state their position in a way that would not cause unnecessary offense to the Jewish believers. This was managed by throwing the Pharisees a bone, in the form of their urging the Gentiles, while remaining uncircumcised, to refrain from some of the practices that the Jew found most revolting among the Gentiles (vv.19-20).

This is how I read the situation. I know that you see Acts 15 more like an ecumenical council, along the lines of Vatican I and II. Even if there was any question, in the beginning, as to what the council's decision would ultimately be (and I seriously doubt this), still the Jerusalem Council is not parallel to later councils that hammered out the niceties of theology like the question of "the hypostatic union" of the two natures of Christ. The Jerusalem Council was formally defining the very terms of salvation in the gospel—not engaging in highly-nuanced theological hair-splitting. The decisions of this council rendered unnecessary all other such councils in the future of the church, because it defined the relationship between Christianity and its predecessor Judaism once and for all. The Gospel would not need to be defined again.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by darinhouston » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:31 am

tom wrote:I don't get the anti-Roman Catholic attitude from this forum. I thought the forum was for all points of view as long as it could be justified in Scripture?
Tom, I'm traveling abroad right now, and have not had access to the forum but I'm doing some catchup in airport lounges along the way and have seen nothing even hinting at anti-RC rhetoric apart from the one example with regard to Hitler's association, and that individual apologized (and was also responding to an RC association of Hitler with Protestants). In fact, if anything, I've seen anti-Protestant vitriol here in recent weeks -- not responding to the arguments themselves, but suggesting ill motives of the protestants in their posts.

In any event, all non-abusive views are welcome here, but that does NOT mean that we accept all views as being legitimate. If that's what you think Protestants believe, then you need to go back to some very basic presuppositions in responding to our positions. There is virtually no position that could not be argued from Scripture, but that does not mean that all such views are equal or equally use a fair exegesis in determining the meaning of the scriptures in question.

I think if you deal honestly with the questions and criticisms beyond some internal gut feel as to parallelism or typology etc not recognized by the apostolic teachings, themselves, then you will find a very receptive audience willing to dialog in great detail on the views. Certainly not every RC doctrine is wrong, and we could all learn something I suspect by really getting to the heart of some of the doctrines where we have relied only on our own protestant traditions.

I do think you could contribute and learn a lot from this forum, and I do hope you stick around and deal with the substances and also continue to call in to the radio show. When your calls are not merely repetitive (what your fellow rc brother calls circular) I very much enjoy your calls.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:57 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by tom » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:14 am

Okay, I can agree that Paul had revelation of the Gospel. And the issue of circumcision come up earlier in Acts 11. But it was not defined! You seem to brush off the fact that Paul and Barnabas didn't anathematize the false teachers that came from Judea to Antioch teaching false doctrine. Remember Matt 18:17, " But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." They had to go to the Church first. As you say Paul knew the new rules of the Gospel and knew they were teaching wrong doctrine.

This is the whole context of Acts 15. If Paul, no dummy to the revelation of the Gospel, knew, and he did, that circumcision was no longer required. Why not stop there?

Acts 15:6, "Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter." Sounds like this issue was still not quite worked out. Still not defined!

Acts 15:7, "And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up..." Still seems to me the Apostles and elders were not totally sure if circumcision was necessary for saving of their souls!

Acts 15:23, " It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!" Not written to the false teachers! Obviously the Christians in Antioch must have had this question or when it was brought to their attention they would have said to themselves, 'well maybe we do have to be circumcised'.

Acts 15:24, "Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "[You must] be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no [such] commandment--". Why would they be unsettled if Paul had revelation from God on the Gospel. While I can see your point that they may have been unsettled that the Church in Jerusalem gave bad doctrine. In context, "ancient Jewish custom of circumcision taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Their souls would be unsettled, could they maybe not be saved?! Would we have to be circumcised to save our souls?

Acts 15:28, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:" Once again the way this is written the Christians in Antioch had to have legitimate questions about following the rite of circumcision. Not just the question of Peter and the Church being wrong.

Acts 15:28-29, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Now we have some more things that need to be hashed out. Do we abstain from blood and strangled things? The Christians, including Paul and Barnabas, did not seem to object to these ancient rules. Why not? Because they had not yet been defined.


This is where I think your argument falls apart;
"Which church?" There is only one Church, under one Head. It is found wherever there are true followers of Jesus. Disputes can be brought before the segment of that church with which one is in regular contact. You might find this logistically impractical, or personally unacceptable, but you have never been able to show the scriptural defect in my reasoning.

If what you wrote is how Christians are to settle moral issues then they never should have left Antioch. The Church in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to another Church to get an answer.

I can see your view on the Antioch Church going to see if the Jerusalem Church was teaching false doctrine. I hope you can see my view mainly when we take it in light of Peter getting the keys, (Matt 16:19), and after we have exhausted our Christian options we are to take it to the Church, (Matt 18:17).

Tom

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by RND » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:34 am

Tom, in your mind, is there a difference in requiring circumcision for salvation and desiring circumcision for health reasons?

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Physical circumcision for salvation purposes was the issue, not circumcision. In essence, doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons by using force is what the council was standing against.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:41 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by tom » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:52 pm

Well here's the way I see it and the way I think the Bible is showing us to reflect upon. As was stated in previously posted rebuttals;
Tom, this is all well in good in your opinion, but let me ask a question if I may. What do we do when "the church" abuses it's so-called "authority" by teaching things and notions that are completing contrary to logic, common sense and the clear teaching of the Word of God?
Let's use the Bible to show my point on Acts 15 comparing to Matt 18.

Matt 18:15, "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone..." Show him his fault.
Acts 15:2, "When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them..." Paul and Barnabas debate.


Matt 18:15, "if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother."
Acts 15:2, "they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." They didn't listen to Paul.


Matt 18:16, "But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."
Acts 15:2, "Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, ..." Paul brings others into the debate.


Matt 18:17, " And if he shall neglect to hear them,..."
Acts 15:3, "And being brought on their way by the church,..." They didn't listen to two or three witnesses.


Matt 18:17, "tell [it] unto the church:..."
Acts 15:4, "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders, ..." Note that they are received by the Church but not like the Church in Antioch. The Apostles and Elders also received them.


Matt 18:17, "but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Dismiss them from the body of Christ. No longer a Christian.
Acts 15:7, "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe....
Acts 15:12, "Then all the multitude kept silence,..."
Acts 15:13, "And after they had held their peace,..." The Church did not have to anathematize them because they accepted the ruling.


Tom

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by tom » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:27 am

I think that the readers want me to use scripture to support my views. When I read your rebuttals I see some bias in your use of scripture and in your omission of scripture.
You are not taking into consideration the fact that a kingdom not of this world might have a different authority structure than would the kingdoms of this world.


As I've previously stated; the Kingdom Jesus proclaims is a Spiritual Kingdom of this world. In Matt 13 Jesus gives us many examples of the Kingdom. They are less then the perfect Kingdom we expect to find in Heaven! Jesus' Kingdom is different than the Davidic Kingdom and in a sense, "not of this world"! It is a Spiritual Kingdom that will over take the world but not with swords and armies. It makes no earthly sense. The first shall be last and the last shall be first!
In the kingdom of God, greatness does not reside in the ones wearing religious habits and having others kiss their rings in adoration and calling them "Father" and "Teacher" (Matthew 23:5-10).


You once again bring up Matt 23:5-10 saying that the Catholic Church cannot be the Kingdom because they call their pastors "father". Implying that because the use of the name somehow makes us imperfect. What does the Bible say about "call NO man teacher/father"?
Eph 4:11, "He is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers."

Rom 4:12, "and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised."

Rom 9:10, " And not only [this], but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, [even] by our father Isaac..."

1Cor 4:14+15, " I am not writing these things to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children. For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you. "

Paul tells us to imitate him and to become fathers in the faith!
Tom, if you have ever listened to my answers, then you know that I do not equate the kingdom with heaven. And if you consult the history of the Dark Ages, you will realize that the reign of the papacy has been anything but "heaven on earth."


I don't think you want to bring up bad Christian history. I can show some really bad Protestant Christian history as well and as Popeman has already done. Catholic history goes back 2000+ years and the Protestants only go back some 400+ years. Remember what I said about this forum being anti-Catholic?

Tom

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church the Kingdom?

Post by darinhouston » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:21 am

tom wrote:
I don't think you want to bring up bad Christian history. I can show some really bad Protestant Christian history as well and as Popeman has already done. Catholic history goes back 2000+ years and the Protestants only go back some 400+ years. Remember what I said about this forum being anti-Catholic?

Tom
But, Tom, we don't claim something special about some Protestant institution during those periods and would suggest if such atrocities were propagated by Protestants, then they were likely in name only Christians or were severely misled (and to what may you be referring?). You would conversely believe (do you not?) that the official Catholic church (or the magesterium/popes/bishops) could not be so misled or "non-Christian."

We do confess to being against Catholic dogma and much of its distinct doctrines, but that doesn't mean we are not objective or reasonable or that we somehow don't like individual Catholics or are out to "get" you. We do want to convince you of our position obviously, but you want the same for us do you not? Does that mean your are anti-Protestant?

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”