Are the Roman Catholic Church Biblical?

[WisdomTree]

And I was having such a nice dream before you invaded it.

Spill The Wine, adapted with lyrics - YouTube

Did you forget what we are? We are Roman Catholics!

 

[Rev Randy]

Did you forget what we are? We are Roman Catholics!

We come in peace.

 

[Jan001]

What was left out? Nothing. But it has to be interpreted. Correct?

It is indeed possible for a person of good will, who is fervently seeking God's will above his own will, to figure out from the Scriptures which "church" he should be attending. However, if he is not willing to act on what he has learned, he will be spiritually worse off than when he was ignorant of the truth. Luke 12:42-48

Jesus established a Church with a hierarchy to make disciples for Him and to teach these new disciples to obey all that He commands them. The Bible is not Christ's Church. The Bible is an inanimate object. It has no ears to hear, no eyes to see, and no brain to interpret itself. It can exercise no authority. Only people can hear, see, think, and exercise authority.

Jesus gave His authority and power for His Church's government and its continuation to His apostles and their successors. He gave to the apostles and disciples the Scriptures via the Holy Spirit's inspiration and He gave to them the authority and ability to interpret for His Church's disciples what the original authors meant to convey to His disciples.

When the Scriptures are interpreted by the legitimate authority appointed by Jesus Christ through hierarchical apostolic succession, they agree perfectly with the original apostles' and disciples' oral preaching.

Matthew 28:18-20
"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen." NKJV (To observe means to obey.)

Luke writes about the first successor of the apostles in Acts 1:15-26.

In OT times, Moses was given this governing authority from God. Later, Moses appointed judges/rulers to help him. Exodus 18:12-26

By the time of Jesus, Moses' authority was exercised by the scribes (teachers of the Law) and the Pharisees. Since the OT was still in force and would remain in force until Jesus died on the cross, Jesus commanded that His followers obey the scribes and Pharisees because they alone exercised the authority of Moses.

Matthew 23:1-3
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." NIV

Jesus established a Church with a hierarchy with Peter, to whom He gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven at the top, like Moses was for the Israelites; and the other apostles helping him like the judges and rulers helped Moses and He commanded His NC hierarchy to make disciples for Him by baptizing them and to teach these new disciples to obey all that Jesus commanded them.

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” NIV

Today, it is still Jesus' Church's hierarchy who has His authority to rule over the members of His Church. We cannot change this incontrovertible fact even if we do not personally like who these rulers are or how they act in their personal lives. Jesus commanded that His followers obey the scribes and Pharisees in matters of religion but He also told them not to imitate these sinful scribes' and Pharisee's personal actions.

Paul also commands this same thing for NC Christians:

Hebrews 13:7-8; 17
"Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct........ 17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." NKJV

In other words, if any one of the hierarchy's leaders does not do the commands of Jesus that he preaches to you, obey him in matters of religion, but do not imitate his lifestyle.

Jesus established one church only. He is its head. His disciples/followers are its body. He has appointed leaders for the making of disciples through baptism for Him and for the teaching of His gospel to them and for the governing of all His Church on earth.

Ephesians 4:4-6
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." NKJV

Everyone who is legitimately baptized is a member of Jesus' body, His Church. (This is not the thread we should use to discuss more about baptism.)

However, not every baptized person understands and partakes of all that His Church has to offer. Jesus commands that we eat His real glorified Flesh and drink His real glorified Blood if we want to have eternal life. Many baptized persons do not have access to His real Flesh and real Blood in the places where they worship and so they are not doing as Jesus commanded in order to enter into eternal life.

John 6:47-58
"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." NIV


Only the successors of the apostles are able to provide the real Flesh and the real Blood of Jesus Christ to His followers and it is only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches who have this unbroken succession from the apostles.


Paul ordained Timothy by the laying on of the hands of the eldership/priesthood and so later Paul writes to him to encourage him in his ministry:

1 Timothy 4:12-16
"Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership. 15 Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. 16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." NKJV

I want to enter into eternal life and so I eat Jesus' real flesh and I drink His real blood as He commanded us to do and I partake of these gifts in a worthy manner. 1 Corinthians 11:23-27; Matthew 5:22-24

 

[Albion]

So, if you want a church that is based upon man's opinions and custom RATHER THAN the Bible, choose one of the churches that take that POV. If you are convinced that the word of God in Holy Scripture is our supreme and final guide to correct doctrine, choose one of the reformed churches. As Jan001 suggests, you have to study and then follow your conscience in the matter.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, if you want a church that is based upon man's opinions and custom RATHER THAN the Bible, choose one of the churches that take that POV. If you are convinced that the word of God in Holy Scripture is our supreme and final guide to correct doctrine, choose one of the reformed churches. As Jan001 suggests, you have to study and then follow your conscience in the matter.

Of course the idea that "the word of God in Holy Scripture is our supreme and final guide to correct doctrine" is one of those things "that is based upon man's opinions and custom RATHER THAN the Bible" so one's conscience truly has to make a choice, right?

 

[Jan001]

Same, though in hindsight I may have been (unintentionally) baptized twice...

The second baptism is conditional. If the first baptism was legitimate, the second baptism is a renewal of the promises made during the first baptism.

 

[Albion]

Of course the idea that "the word of God in Holy Scripture is our supreme and final guide to correct doctrine" is one of those things "that is based upon man's opinions and custom RATHER THAN the Bible" so one's conscience truly has to make a choice, right?

Whether or not one decides to follow God's revelation might be just a personal opinion, that's true.

But then again, Jan was wrong to say "The Bible is an inanimate object. It has no ears to hear, no eyes to see, and no brain to interpret itself. It can exercise no authority."

right?

 

[Standing Up]

Thought what? if memory serves me right a couple were exiled because they would not repent and agree. So no one there was infallible. Some failed to understand and the rest failed to convince them.

The point was the Creed of Nicea was changed by subsequent Councils. Filioque.

Councils were deemed in the will of God, the bishops speak for Christ. Anathemas all around.

Instead, with the changes, what has happened is nothing less than showing the decrees and creeds were simply established by bishop opinion.

 

[Standing Up]

The bishops in 325 didn't they were infallible. They argued against what was blatantly wrong, and it turns out those bishops were right when they produced the Nicene Creed.

But no so right that additions were made to it.

You can argue it was for clarifications sake, but others would say it changed things.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Whether or not one decides to follow God's revelation might be just a personal opinion, that's true.

But then again, Jan was wrong to say "The Bible is an inanimate object. It has no ears to hear, no eyes to see, and no brain to interpret itself. It can exercise no authority."

right?

Books do not exercise authority, people using a book might impose their opinions about what the book means on others. The authority that one might acknowledge in the words of scripture is, of course, an acknowledgement of God's supreme authority coupled with respect for what is in the book. Nevertheless the book itself urges Christians to follow the way of Christ and to show love for one another as Christ has loved his church. In the end the book is, as sister Jan001 rightly said, a book and as such is not alive and powerful and sharper that a razor enabling one to separate bone from marrow and spirit from soul; that authority belongs to the Word of God rather than to a book.

 

[WisdomTree]

The second baptism is conditional. If the first baptism was legitimate, the second baptism is a renewal of the promises made during the first baptism.

I guess. It's just that I'm uncertain whether I was baptized as an infant or not.

The point was the Creed of Nicea was changed by subsequent Councils. Filioque.

Councils were deemed in the will of God, the bishops speak for Christ. Anathemas all around.

Instead, with the changes, what has happened is nothing less than showing the decrees and creeds were simply established by bishop opinion.

May I ask which council was that?

 

[Standing Up]

The Catholic Church has been consistent on this issue. LDS baptisms are wrong as they are done knowingly against the Trinitiy.

Interestingly RC said this "The bishop said, ``As we know, the LDS Church baptizes all its new members who were previously baptized in any other church. That practice indicated that the LDS Church regards its own baptism as accomplishing something which is substantially different from that of all other baptismal rites.’’ - See more at: The Catholic Review > Vatican ruling on Mormon baptism clarifies Catholic practice"

That was Stephen's argument! He said Marcion, Apelles, etc don't rebaptize their members, therefore we (RC) accept their heretical baptisms as valid.

 

[Standing Up]

May I ask which council was that?

From post #437 (MoreCoffee) who I believe has this one right:

In 325 AD the Nicene Creed did not mention the procession of the Holy Spirit. In 381 AD the Nicene Creed was expanded significantly and the clause about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father was added. The Filioque cause was added in the West some time in or shortly after the sixth century and was formally adopted by Papal act in 1014 AD.

 

[Jan001]

Paul had John's disciples (re)baptized in contrast to Rome's later view of things (Arius', for example, baptism was okay).

John the Baptist's disciples received John's baptism of repentance to prepare them to receive the baptism of Jesus which was for the actual forgiveness of sins.

John's Baptism of repentance:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.


John's baptism did not remit sins. Those who repented of their sins and received John's baptism did become prepared to later receive the baptism of Jesus which does remit/forgive sins and which does give us the Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:1-6
"And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." NKJV


The Baptism of Jesus commanded:

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


The Baptism of Jesus practiced:

Acts 22:14-16
Then he said, ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. 15 For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ NKJV

 

[Albion]

Books do not exercise authority, people using a book might impose their opinions about what the book means on others. The authority that one might acknowledge in the words of scripture is, of course, an acknowledgement of God's supreme authority coupled with respect for what is in the book. Nevertheless the book itself urges Christians to follow the way of Christ and to show love for one another as Christ has loved his church.

In other words, you want the Bible to be seen as standing on its own merits and considered self-explanatory when it can be read to support the Roman Catholic Church's claims to jurisdiction; but otherwise, it is just a book that is "an inanimate object. It has no ears to hear, no eyes to see, and no brain to interpret itself." And you don't see an inherent contradiction in that view?

 

[Jan001]

If I had my way (not expecting that to happen), i'd lock five bishops from rome in a room with five from the East. I would send no food but only water and let them out only when they had the matters resolved. I bet it would be resolved rather quickly after I wafted the smell of pizza in a time or two.

Good idea!

 

[Bunnelby]

If I had my way (not expecting that to happen), i'd lock five bishops from rome in a room with five from the East. I would send no food but only water and let them out only when they had the matters resolved. I bet it would be resolved rather quickly after I wafted the smell of pizza in a time or two.

...what's so funny about this is that it actually might work.

 

[Jan001]

.......

.......
What the West did in adding the filioque was to make the third clause not just a statement about the Holy Spirit as was originally intended by the Fathers, but to use it as a defence of the divinity of the Son, which was not the purpose of the clause..

Please link to the historical evidence for your claim. Thanks.

 

[Jan001]

I guess. It's just that I'm uncertain whether I was baptized as an infant or not.

That is why a second baptism is always conditional in cases such as yours.

 

[WisdomTree]

That is why a second baptism is always conditional in cases such as yours.

Oh well. At least I didn't have to get baptized a third time when I entered into full communion with the Catholic Church!