Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Faith?

[Benadam]

As soon as there was a pope there was a problem.

Christ didn't make anyone into a pope.

Peoples worldly desire for power made people into popes.

Here is Paul claiming papal ( pope means papa or father) authority and a successor. Verse 16 😮. Who does he think he is?

1 Cor. 4
15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Knowing God as three persons requires that God reveal it to man. Natural reason can reach an understanding of God as one, none beside Him creator of all that is. In fact man did.

Why do you put the Word 'alone ' after faith?. Why not the simpler 'by faith'?

I am accentuating the "alone" part.

It really doesn't need to be there because many verses state that justification is by faith. It doesn't mention anything else. Therefore nothing else applies, including any type of merit.

As I have noted, works do "justify" in the sense of vindicating the believer before men, but not before God. God sees the faith that the person already possesses. In this case, I would translate the Greek as "vindicate" and not "justify".

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Here is Paul claiming papal ( pope means papa or father) authority and a successor. Verse 16 😮. Who does he think he is?

1 Cor. 4
15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

The word "father" is not being used in the sense that the Pope uses it.

He is using it as an ecclesiastical title. Paul was simply saying that in a sense, he was Timothy's father because he taught the gospel to Timothy, and discipled him, and Timothy was representing him in some sense as a fruit of his evangelistic labor.

 

[Grandpa]

Here is Paul claiming papal ( pope means papa or father) authority and a successor. Verse 16 😮. Who does he think he is?

1 Cor. 4
15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

This is more of a figure of speech than a claim to any authority or Paul making himself the first pope.

And making Timothy the 2nd pope.

 

[Benadam]

The word "father" is not being used in the sense that the Pope uses it.

He is using it as an ecclesiastical title. Paul was simply saying that in a sense, he was Timothy's father because he taught the gospel to Timothy, and discipled him, and Timothy was representing him in some sense as a fruit of his evangelistic labor.

Paul writing to the Corinthian community. We would call that a Diocese today of which each has it's own Bishop. A Bishop is the father of the diocese. All authority exercised in the Diocese rests in him. Just as it does the father in a family.
Paul was installing Timothy as Bishop as He himself had to travel to fulfill his vocation. A Bishop never left his diocese...ever. It was considered to be adulterous. So Paul IS appointing and claiming authority over the Bishop of Corinth.
As far as the ecclesiastical title.....is a rose still a rose........

Paul even went this far;

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

 

[Benadam]

This is more of a figure of speech than a claim to any authority or Paul making himself the first pope.

And making Timothy the 2nd pope.

I agree he wasn't claiming to sit in the Chair of Peter. But he was claiming to have the authority to appoint a Bishop over Corinth.

 

[DorothyMae]

Why do people attack Catholics as false, when we're the mutant spawn that arose from the original church? How does one reconcile their beliefs knowing that Catholicism came first?

We do some reading in history and learn that Catholicism started with Constantine who made himself the first pope as well as reading what proceeded from there. The truth is a great comforter at times.

 

[DorothyMae]

Limited understanding is a problem because how can you build a house without the right measurements?

Brainwashed could be an argument used for anyone who has opposing views to your own. Doesn't it seem more probable that the first doctrine is the correct doctrine?

The first doctrine is found in the book of acts and the rest of the new Testament. The catholic doctrine started in the 4th century, not the first by any standard.

But the Catholic church has been changed by the protestants, not the least of which is allowing everyone to have a bible. And there are other changes as well so that many catholics are christians.

 

[Benadam]

I am accentuating the "alone" part.

It really doesn't need to be there because many verses state that justification is by faith. It doesn't mention anything else. Therefore nothing else applies, including any type of merit.

As I have noted, works do "justify" in the sense of vindicating the believer before men, but not before God. God sees the faith that the person already possesses. In this case, I would translate the Greek as "vindicate" and not "justify".

You don't understand Catholic teaching. Your thinking is colored by anti-Catholicism. We aren't so dumb as to repeat the mistakes made by the Pharisees and such.
You know how Paul taught that we will all be tested and there are works that will burn? Works made of wood, straw and hay burn and works of more noble materials like gold and silver will remain.

Works that have merit won't burn when our lives are tested.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

You don't understand Catholic teaching. Your thinking is colored by anti-Catholicism. We aren't so dumb as to repeat the mistakes made by the Pharisees and such.
You know how Paul taught that we will all be tested and there are works that will burn? Works made of wood, straw and hay burn and works of more noble materials like gold and silver will remain.

Works that have merit won't burn when our lives are tested.

We aren't so dumb as to repeat the mistakes made by the Pharisees and such.

I suppose you mean the Judaizers.

The question is whether you believe the sacraments convey justifying grace. This would answer whether you are as dumb as the Judaizers, because Judaizers were teaching that the Mosaic Law rituals are necessary for justification and/or sanctification.

By the way, evangelicals believe that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper are commandments but they do not convey salvific grace. Notice the word "salvific". We do believe they convey grace in one sense, in that they encourage the believer and remind them of their union with Christ. Additionally, they are occasions of intimate fellowship before the LORD.

But, we don't believe things like the blood and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, and that salvific grace is conveyed through them.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

We do some reading in history and learn that Catholicism started with Constantine who made himself the first pope as well as reading what proceeded from there. The truth is a great comforter at times.

Constantine never claimed to be the first pope lol.

He was a civil ruler.

The bishop of Rome eventually claimed supremacy over the entire church. This situation evolved over time, and it was long after Constantine. For many centuries Rome was considered just one of several bishoprics.

Their claims have never been accepted, by the way. The Orthodox church would strongly deny them, and the bishoprics of the East were just as much a part of the Church as Rome.

I will agree that you need to be ignorant of church history to claim that Roman Catholicism is the true church, though. All you have to do is read history and you realize that Rome is a boastful, prideful bishopric that tried to exert extraordinary claims over others.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I agree he wasn't claiming to sit in the Chair of Peter. But he was claiming to have the authority to appoint a Bishop over Corinth.

Church planters today have done similar things. A church planter over a large area will select the person that he wants to lead the church, based on the fruit of the person, in a given area, so he could move on to a new area.

This proves nothing about apostolic succession though. Apostolic succession is a false doctrine that is not provable from Scripture.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Constantine never claimed to be the first pope lol.

He was a civil ruler.

The bishop of Rome eventually claimed supremacy over the entire church. This situation evolved over time, and it was long after Constantine. For many centuries Rome was considered just one of several bishoprics.

Their claims have never been accepted, by the way. The Orthodox church would strongly deny them, and the bishoprics of the East were just as much a part of the Church as Rome.

I will agree that you need to be ignorant of church history to claim that Roman Catholicism is the true church, though. All you have to do is read history and you realize that Rome is a boastful, prideful bishopric that tried to exert extraordinary claims over others.

IIRC, the true RCC started with the split in 1054, or thereabouts.

 

[DorothyMae]

Constantine never claimed to be the first pope lol.

He was a civil ruler.

He named himself Pontifex Maximus of the church. He was the first to do so over the christians. He already was such over the pagan faiths.

The bishop of Rome eventually claimed supremacy over the entire church. This situation evolved over time, and it was long after Constantine. For many centuries Rome was considered just one of several bishoprics.

No, Constantine claimed supremacy over all the religions. They didn’t separate church and state.

Their claims have never been accepted, by the way. The Orthodox church would strongly deny them, and the bishoprics of the East were just as much a part of the Church as Rome.

The bible believing christians never accepted Rome as head.

I will agree that you need to be ignorant of church history to claim that Roman Catholicism is the true church, though. All you have to do is read history and you realize that Rome is a boastful, prideful bishopric that tried to exert extraordinary claims over others.

I agree.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Paul writing to the Corinthian community. We would call that a Diocese today of which each has it's own Bishop. A Bishop is the father of the diocese. All authority exercised in the Diocese rests in him. Just as it does the father in a family.
Paul was installing Timothy as Bishop as He himself had to travel to fulfill his vocation. A Bishop never left his diocese...ever. It was considered to be adulterous. So Paul IS appointing and claiming authority over the Bishop of Corinth.
As far as the ecclesiastical title.....is a rose still a rose........

Paul even went this far;

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

You don't quote the entire verse.

Which is pretty handy for you.
.
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

The Corinthians were exhorted to follow Paul's example, insofar as he was following Christ.

I don't think that gives the Roman Catholic church any authority whatsoever, because many leaders within the Roman bishopric have been perverts over time. And, in fact, there were three popes at one time, all in opposition to each other and puppets of various secular rulers. Which one was the legitimate one?

I will acknowledge that some Roman bishoprics were godly men, though.

By the way, you can claim I am anti-Roman Catholic in my rhetoric. Actually my remarks are better informed and more lenient than the vast majority of evangelical Christians. Many would consider all Roman Catholics to be false believers, throughout all time. I actually believe some of the bishops of Rome were godly men. But, what we know as Roman Catholicism today is very corrupted and is engaged in Mary worship and other such false teachings. For instance, claiming that Mary never sinned is a false teaching that is plainly disproved, and claiming that Mary never had other children is a false teaching. Claiming that Jesus teleported out of the womb without rupturing her hymen, in order to maintain perpetual virginity, is a false teaching. Claiming that the Church can dispense forgiveness of sins conditional upon giving the Church money is a false teaching. Claiming that the merits of the saints and Mary can supply merit to the believer is a false teaching.

And, all these false teachings are unnecessary if one accepts that Jesus' righteousness is imparted to the believer, and that is their merit before God. They are joined to Christ, and this union produces spiritual fruit, but their justifying righteousness is a gift from God, and it is legal in nature.

If Rome accepts this, then it has a true gospel. If it rejects this, it is anathema.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

IIRC, the true RCC started with the split in 1054, or thereabouts.

That's as good a date as any, but they were making claims that they were "first among equals" as far back as 450.

No figure was really considered a "real pope" until about 600 AD with Gregory.

There was likely a plurality of elders in Rome

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

He named himself Pontifex Maximus of the church. He was the first to do so over the christians. He already was such over the pagan faiths. No, Constantine claimed supremacy over all the religions. They didn’t separate church and state.
The bible believing christians never accepted Rome as head.
I agree.

I wasn't aware Constantine used the title Pontifex Maximus. I suppose if you looked at it that way, he would be somewhat equivalent of a Pope.

There was a Bishop of Rome at the time of the council of Nicea, Sylvester, but he did not attend, which is pretty ironic because many cultic nuts claim that the Pope "changed the Sabbath" or declared the Trinity or defined the Canon or declared Jesus God at the council of Nicea, when he wasn't even there. Constantine is the biggest boogie man of the cultic groups.

I relate the word "Pope" to the bishop of Rome who claims to be the head of the Church. Therefore I wouldn't have viewed Constantine as being a Pope in that sense. However, I can see where you are coming from on that.

 

[DorothyMae]

I wasn't aware Constantine used the title Pontifex Maximus. I suppose if you looked at it that way, he would be somewhat equivalent of a Pope.

There was a Bishop of Rome at the time of the council of Nicea, Sylvester, but he did not attend, which is pretty ironic because many cultic nuts claim that the Pope "changed the Sabbath" or declared the Trinity or defined the Canon or declared Jesus God at the council of Nicea, when he wasn't even there. Constantine is the biggest boogie man of the cultic groups.

I relate the word "Pope" to the bishop of Rome who claims to be the head of the Church. Therefore I wouldn't have viewed Constantine as being a Pope in that sense. However, I can see where you are coming from on that.

It could be argued that he never called himself the pope but he did insist he was the head of the christian church so that is a factor. We don’t have two heads, Pontix Maximus AND a Pope which you correctly state was/is the bisoph of Rome.

But I hear you on the nuts who make the pope and catholics into bogeymen. The church was powerful but is no longer. When powerful that power was sometimes abused for personal gain. Secular powerful men do this too. Doesn’t make them antichrist.

 

[DorothyMae]

That's as good a date as any, but they were making claims that they were "first among equals" as far back as 450.

No figure was really considered a "real pope" until about 600 AD with Gregory.

There was likely a plurality of elders in Rome

You are in deed very well informed. Looking forward to learning from you.

 

[Benadam]

The question is whether you believe the sacraments convey justifying grace. This would answer whether you are as dumb as the Judaizers, because Judaizers were teaching that the Mosaic Law rituals are necessary for justification and/or

You proved my point. The Sacraments are signs that God has acted and what the words mean God does. We need visible signs to be certain of invisible realities.
Note the Holy Spirit in the following

Matt 3
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

What Peter says happens.
Acts 2
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You don't quote the entire verse.

Which is pretty handy for you.
.
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

The Corinthians were exhorted to follow Paul's example, insofar as he was following Christ.

I don't think that gives the Roman Catholic church any authority whatsoever, because many leaders within the Roman bishopric have been perverts over time. And, in fact, there were three popes at one time, all in opposition to each other and puppets of various secular rulers. Which one was the legitimate one?

I will acknowledge that some Roman bishoprics were godly men, though.

By the way, you can claim I am anti-Roman Catholic in my rhetoric. Actually my remarks are better informed and more lenient than the vast majority of evangelical Christians. Many would consider all Roman Catholics to be false believers, throughout all time. I actually believe some of the bishops of Rome were godly men. But, what we know as Roman Catholicism today is very corrupted and is engaged in Mary worship and other such false teachings. For instance, claiming that Mary never sinned is a false teaching that is plainly disproved, and claiming that Mary never had other childThen Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.teaching. Claiming that Jesus teleported out of the womb without rupturing her hymen, in order to maintain perpetual virginity, is a false teaching. Claiming that the Church can dispense forgiveness of sins conditional upon giving the Church money is a false teaching. Claiming that the merits of the saints and Mary can supply merit to the believer is a false teaching.

And, all these false teachings are unnecessary if one accepts that Jesus' righteousness is imparted to the believer, and that is their merit before God. They are joined to Christ, and this union produces spiritual fruit, but their justifying righteousness is a gift from God, and it is legal in nature.

If Rome accepts this, then it has a true gospel. If it rejects this, it is anathema.

i showed you in scripture the structure of the Church. It's there you can deny it but not say it isn't there.

If your oldest brother gave your mom to one of his friends to take care of instead of you or one of her other children how would that make you feel?
If Mary had other sons how could Jesus ask her to live with John?