Where does Jesus say to follow the Roman Catholic Church

[Bonnie]

I think we can see good reason to expect that Jesus wanted his church to be a single community. We see the beginnings of such a community in the book of Acts. We see the church in Jerusalem taking an interest in correcting the church in Antioch. Even though Antioch and Jerusalem were two sets of people, they acts like a community. Those in Antioch trying to make Mosaic law the rule for all of Christendom and those in Jerusalem saying this should burden should not be laid on members. In the end, those in Jerusalem corrected those in Antioch. They acted to make the decision that would apply to all of Christendom. That is why today there are not any Christian churches that still require adherence to the Mosaic law. This sets the pattern for the church, which is composed of all believers in Christ and his teaching, to organize that community for the spiritual benefit of all. Thus "the church" becomes more than just a set of people who believe in Jesus personally. "The church" is the people gathered. And I stress "gathered" because that part is sometimes overlooked. It is not enough to simply be a believer personally. One must also be a believer communally. That is, they must be gathered with others, similar to the church in Jerusalem. The best example of how that works out is seen in chapter 15 of Acts where the church in Jerusalem gathers together to make some important decisions about what requirements should be placed on converts.

The church is made up of ALL true believers in Jesus Christ, everywhere, who put their faith and trust in Him alone for eternal life--not faith and trust in membership in this or that church body.

Granted this does not mention "the Catholic Church" or the "church in Rome" or leaders specifically. But it does call for something that looks a lot like a catholic Church where the small 'c' indicates the adjective "catholic", meaning universal.

See what I wrote above. Jesus knows who are His.

If we look around for the church today, it out to look universal in the same way the church at Jerusalem was universal. What the Apostles decided in Jerusalem was accepted by the other communities. There are several candidates today for a "universal" church. Several Protestant denominations have a centralized body that decides the issues of the day. If one were to look at what the can see today, there would be no way to say the church could only be the Roman Catholic Church. But if one were to look back in time to see when these various denominations were founded and became visible to the world most of them were not visible to the world for more than 600 years. There is only one Christian church that has an historical record going back farther than any other - back to the time when historical records were spotty at best. In other words, the historical record goes back as far as could reasonably be expected.

However, even if one does not accept the Roman Catholic Church as the one true church, they should at least accept the premise Jesus did found a church whose community is more than just the people in their immediate neighborhood or village, just as those in Jerusalem exercised authority over those in Antioch.

See what I wrote above.

 

[RiJoRi]

The church is made up of ALL true believers in Jesus Christ, everywhere, who put their faith and trust in Him alone for eternal life--not faith and trust in membership in this or that church body.

Amen!
AND His sheep know they are His:
Joh 10:4-5 BSB "When he [the True Shepherd] has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will flee from him because they do not recognize his voice.”

In fact, all of John 10 is quite revealing! Except maybe to those who are not His sheep, who will only see "ink on paper".

 

[LifeIn]

The church is made up of ALL true believers in Jesus Christ, everywhere, who put their faith and trust in Him alone for eternal life--not faith and trust in membership in this or that church body.

The church described in Acts looked like more than just the collection of all true believers. It was a community that came together with authority over all true believers.

 

[balshan]

The church described in Acts looked like more than just the collection of all true believers. It was a community that came together with authority over all true believers.

It was not a bad tree, your institution is the bad tree. It harms the sheep and teaches another gospel.

 

[LifeIn]

It was not a bad tree, your institution is the bad tree. It harms the sheep and teaches another gospel.

But it was a tree, not just a bunch of leaves as Bonnie suggests.

 

[Atemi]

The church described in Acts looked like more than just the collection of all true believers. It was a community that came together with authority over all true believers.

Nowhere is that the case.

You want so bad to prop up your Masters as "the Church" who can boss around Christ followers everywhere.

Such a model is nowhere in Scripture. Sorry.

Your best case was that the church at Jerusalem was "correcting" other churches...but come to find out it was the church at Jerusalem that was exporting false doctrine and the church that needed correcting was itself. LOL.

 

[LifeIn]

Nowhere is that the case.

You want so bad to prop up your Masters as "the Church" who can boss around Christ followers everywhere.

Such a model is nowhere in Scripture. Sorry.

Your best case was that the church at Jerusalem was "correcting" other churches...but come to find out it was the church at Jerusalem that was exporting false doctrine and the church that needed correcting was itself. LOL.

No, the false teachers were specifically cited as NOT having the approval of the Apostles. The false teaching was coming from those Jewish converts who were speaking for themselves. There is no mention in the Council of Jerusalem of finding and rooting out the local "source" of this teaching, but there was plenty of mention of writing a letter to Antioch and to sending representatives to Antioch to deliver that letter in person. And there is mention of sending Judas and Silas from the Jerusalem Church to help strengthen the church in Antioch. Off they go to Antioch and that's the last we hear of these false teachers. If the church in Jerusalem needed to correct itself, why is there no record of it? But there is a record of making that correction known in Antioch. If Antioch had exactly the same authority as the Apostles, why would they have needed a letter from the Apostles? Why didn't Antioch send Jerusalem a letter of correction? No, that just doesn't make as much sense as the fact that the Apostles were a source of authority on what Christian teaching is. The Church is not just a collection of equally authoritative communities. It is one community that exercises authority.

 

[Atemi]

Nowhere is that the case.

You want so bad to prop up your Masters as "the Church" who can boss around Christ followers everywhere.

Such a model is nowhere in Scripture. Sorry.

Your best case was that the church at Jerusalem was "correcting" other churches...but come to find out it was the church at Jerusalem that was exporting false doctrine and the church that needed correcting was itself. LOL.

No, the false teachers were specifically cited as NOT having the approval of the Apostles.

Yes. Because the Apostles all already knew that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised to be saved.

But the fact is they came out of Jerusalem and were being exported to other churches, polluting them as well.

There is no mention in the Council of Jerusalem of finding and rooting out the local "source" of this teaching

When Paul and Barnabas arrived from Antioch, guess who they found at the church at Jerusalem? More of those spreading this false doctrine.

The Judaizers found a home at the church in Jerusalem and were spreading this heresy all around.

, but there was plenty of mention of writing a letter to Antioch and to sending representatives to Antioch to deliver that letter in person.

Because those confused in Antioch needed word from the church at Jerusalem itself that they are not teaching this false doctrine....which came from their church.

Do you suppose those false teachers still found a happy home there at the church at Jerusalem after this incident?

If the church in Jerusalem needed to correct itself, why is there no record of it?

So the Holy Spirit says the Judaizers made a home in the church in Jerusalem and spread false teaching from that same church....but you want to claim the church in Jerusalem never corrected this error among their brethen?

LOL!

If Antioch had exactly the same authority as the Apostles, why would they have needed a letter from the Apostles?

Because the false teachers were coming from Jerusalem.

Why didn't Antioch send Jerusalem a letter of correction?

Because Antioch almost bought into the lie.

The Church is not just a collection of equally authoritative communities.

Yes it is, because the ONLY authority anyone in the church wields is the Word of God.

It is one community that exercises authority.

The Church exercises authority over whom?

 

[WilliamC]

No, the false teachers were specifically cited as NOT having the approval of the Apostles. The false teaching was coming from those Jewish converts who were speaking for themselves. There is no mention in the Council of Jerusalem of finding and rooting out the local "source" of this teaching, but there was plenty of mention of writing a letter to Antioch and to sending representatives to Antioch to deliver that letter in person. And there is mention of sending Judas and Silas from the Jerusalem Church to help strengthen the church in Antioch. Off they go to Antioch and that's the last we hear of these false teachers. If the church in Jerusalem needed to correct itself, why is there no record of it? But there is a record of making that correction known in Antioch. If Antioch had exactly the same authority as the Apostles, why would they have needed a letter from the Apostles? Why didn't Antioch send Jerusalem a letter of correction? No, that just doesn't make as much sense as the fact that the Apostles were a source of authority on what Christian teaching is. The Church is not just a collection of equally authoritative communities. It is one community that exercises authority.

No one "needed" a letter from the Apostles. There is no verse that supports that they went to Jerusalem for such. James appraisal shows that they didn't get involved with the disputation. Though they did take the time to write a letter suggesting that they abstain from idols, fornication, things strangled, and from blood. No exercising of "authority" there.

 

[balshan]

No, the false teachers were specifically cited as NOT having the approval of the Apostles. The false teaching was coming from those Jewish converts who were speaking for themselves. There is no mention in the Council of Jerusalem of finding and rooting out the local "source" of this teaching, but there was plenty of mention of writing a letter to Antioch and to sending representatives to Antioch to deliver that letter in person. And there is mention of sending Judas and Silas from the Jerusalem Church to help strengthen the church in Antioch. Off they go to Antioch and that's the last we hear of these false teachers. If the church in Jerusalem needed to correct itself, why is there no record of it? But there is a record of making that correction known in Antioch. If Antioch had exactly the same authority as the Apostles, why would they have needed a letter from the Apostles? Why didn't Antioch send Jerusalem a letter of correction? No, that just doesn't make as much sense as the fact that the Apostles were a source of authority on what Christian teaching is. The Church is not just a collection of equally authoritative communities. It is one community that exercises authority.

The apostles would never approve of your leaders, they do not meet the requirements they set for leaders.

 

[Buzzard]

///
RijoRi says; post #173
Very true! I was just making the point that at some time after the Apostle John's death, Jesus' warning to the church (as seen in Revelation) did take place, and, rather than repenting, the people elected a "shepherd" for themselves. And that "shepherd" turned out to be grey, and furry, and had l-o-n-g teeth.

Very true! I was just making the point that at some time after the Apostle John's death, Jesus' warning to the church (as seen in Revelation) did take place, and, rather than repenting, the people elected a "shepherd" for themselves. And that "shepherd" turned out to be grey, and furry, and had l-o-n-g teeth.

/

"For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit;​

neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."​

-
Judges 9:7
-------Good Trees -<vs>- Bad Trees-------
Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem,
that God may hearken unto you.

The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them;
and they said unto the olive tree,
Reign thou over us.

But the olive tree said unto them,
"Should I leave my fatness,
wherewith by me they honour God and man,
and go to be promoted over the trees"?

And the trees said to the fig tree,
Come thou, and reign over us.

But the fig tree said unto them,
"Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit,
and go to be promoted over the trees"?

Then said the trees unto the vine,
Come thou, and reign over us.

And the vine said unto them,
"Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man,
and go to be promoted over the trees"?

----The Bramble----
Then said all the trees unto the bramble,
"Come thou, and reign over us".

And the bramble said unto the trees,
If in truth ye anoint me king over you,
then come and put your trust in my shadow:
and if not, let fire come out of the bramble,
and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

Now therefore, if ye have done truly and sincerely,
in that ye have made Abimelech king,
and if ye have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house,
and have done unto him according to the deserving of his hands;
..........
If ye then have dealt truly and sincerely with Jerubbaal
and with his house this day,
then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you:

20 But if not, let fire come out from Abimelech,
and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo;
and let fire come out from the men of Shechem,
and from the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech.
.

----The Bramble----​

Then said all the trees unto the bramble,​

"Come thou, and reign over us".​

.​

---The Fruit of the Bad Trees​

that appointed a King over them---​

For every tree is known by his own fruit.​

For of thorns men do not gather figs,​

nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.​

.
Jude 1:11
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain,
and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward,
and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
(Numbers 16)
=============================================
.
RijoRi says; post #173
Very true! I was just making the point that at some time after the Apostle John's death, Jesus' warning to the church (as seen in Revelation) did take place, and, rather than repenting, the people elected a "shepherd" for themselves. And that "shepherd" turned out to be grey, and furry, and had l-o-n-g teeth.
.=====================================end quote
.

Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi,​

and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab,​

and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:​

​

2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel,​

two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly,​

famous in the congregation, men of renown:​

​

3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron,​

"These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts;
and their mouth speaketh great swelling words,
---Man pleasers they are----- kissy, kissy; kissie
having men's persons in admiration because of advantage."
.

Paul was no "Man Pleaser"​

Gal.1:10​

For do I now persuade men, or God?​

or do I seek to please men?​

for if I yet pleased men,​

I should not be the servant of Christ.​

.

 

[JohnDeVitoOfOld]

As though thats proof of what? How many catholic scholars or drs and saints do you disagree with? The BIBLE disagrees with you and your kind here, which you blow off.

Just look at how many catholics rail against Francis. It's hilarious. And they try to do the pot meet kettle thing with prots.

 

[Bonnie]

Secular history and Christian history sustain all our claims over all your claims.

Utterly false. Wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Bonnie]

AMEN

The keys are a sign of authority. The other apostles were within earshot.... didn't they preach the gospel message?

All the apostles had the keys, to bind and loose, to forgive or withhold forgiveness. Not just Peter.

 

[Bonnie]

Those letters were canonized by the Catholic Church. Those letters were preserved by the Catholic Church.

St. Paul was/is Catholic though.

Utterly false! IF he were Catholic, the why did he never teach, by mouth or the written word, the many false doctrines your church has been teaching for many centuries? That we have enumerated on here many times?

 

[Watchdog]

Utterly false! IF he were Catholic, the why did he never teach, by mouth or the written word, the many false doctrines your church has been teaching for many centuries? That we have enumerated on here many times?

Is infant baptism a false doctrine? Going to confession? Many Christians say they are, so what say you?

 

[Watchdog]

Just look at how many catholics rail against Francis. It's hilarious. And they try to do the pot meet kettle thing with prots.

Why is it hilarious? You should praise us for thinking for ourselves. We are not blindly following this man.

 

[balshan]

Why is it hilarious? You should praise us for thinking for ourselves. We are not blindly following this man.

There you are wanting praise for a work. All praise belongs to God alone.

 

[Bonnie]

Is infant baptism a false doctrine? Going to confession? Many Christians say they are, so what say you?

No, and no. People in my church can go to private confession with their pastors. They don't have to, but they can. My husband heard a few, including one from a man he had been chaplain to, who was on death row. He heard his confession and gave him holy communion, before he was executed by lethal injection.

Any more questions about what Lutherans believe should be taken to the Lutheran board.

 

[JohnDeVitoOfOld]

Why is it hilarious? You should praise us for thinking for ourselves. We are not blindly following this man.

We don't say that he was elected by the Holy Spirit. You do. And now you oppose the Holy Spirit.

But Scripture says you will know them by their white smoke...uh...fruit.

By the way. Thinking for yourself can be otherwise defined as "private interpretation". Wouldn't want to do that, would you?