One Holy Catholic (Universal, not Roman) and Apostolic Church
The earliest creeds that we know of, and many of the Reformed confessions (including the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession) speak of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The term creates a gag reflex among the faithful these days, because "Catholic" is so widely associated with the oxymoronically titled "Roman Catholic Church."
I think my stances on the apostacy of the Roman Catholic Church, its departure from orthodoxy, and the invalidity of its claim to be a part of the visible church of Christ (because, for one example, of its claim via Vatican II that Muslims worship the same god as the Roman Catholics) are sufficiently well known that no one will get the wrong idea from reading this post.
One pseudo-Reformed web site recently posted an article entitled "Is Independency Possible," and stated that the author has asked independent Christians how they know that they are part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The web site was, fundamentally, targeting a Reformed preacher in northern Idaho, who was ordained in an irregular way.
The answer that an Independent should give is the same answer that Presbyterians should give. We are part of the Church Universal and Apostolic, because we believe the gospel taught by the apostles and prophets in Scripture, and we associate with others who do the same.
The visible church is the congregation of the outwardly faithful.
We do not appeal to an unbroken succession of bishops/elders as the Roman Catholics vainly attempt. Nor do we assert that there is a sacrament of ordination in which the Apostolic authority is transmitted mysteriously to our bishops/elders by those who went before.
Although ordination by other elders is the ordinary, Biblically exemplary, and best way for elders to be ordained, and although ordination by a presbytery of elders is an excellent implementation of that Biblical principal, there is nothing to prevent a body of Christians in suitable circumstances (for example, if all the elders have been martyred) from ordaining men from among their midst to serve them. The body of Christians (the local church) has been provided by Paul with the guidelines for selection.
For a group, like the website in question, to adopt a sacramental view of ordination is to take a step on the road to Rome. To all such folks, I exhort: Return to the principles of the Reformation! Do not be lifted up with the vanity that corrupted and destroyed the church of Rome - a congregation whose faithful adherence to Scripture was renowned for centuries.
Yes, Independency is possible. There are arguments against independency, but the idea that Independents are outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is pseudo-papist propoganda, and nothing more.
Praise be to our glorious King in allegiance to whom the elect everywhere are all united in faith!
-Turretinfan
A person can go only so far with an argument about apostolicity before he hits a roadblock.
ReplyDeleteThere have been many mess-ups along the way, that to have to claim descent from any of them is tenuous at best.
Amen to your column.
Greetings! Saw your post in Google and have some comments...
ReplyDelete>" oxymoronically titled "Roman Catholic Church.""
Actually, the correct name of the church is the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church is a title made up by English Protestants who wish to continue to describe themselves as Catholic, but had a "gag reflex". So all credit for that oxymoron belongs with English Protestants.
>" its claim via Vatican II that Muslims worship the same god as the Roman Catholics)"
So, how many Gods do you claim exist?
My Bible says that Abraham worshipped one God and one God alone. Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham - the one true God. An imperfect knowledge of God is not proof of another God.
God bless...
- Timothy
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Actually, the correct name of the church is the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church is a title made up by English Protestants who wish to continue to describe themselves as Catholic, but had a "gag reflex". So all credit for that oxymoron belongs with English Protestants."
I respond:
I don't need to debate the etymology with you. It's enough for me that Pope Pius XII adopted the term to describe his church in HUMANI GENERIS, item 27 (1950). Since most Roman Catholics view HUMANI GENERIS as an ex cathedra encyclical, I'd be interested to hear whether you, as a Roman Catholic, dogmatically cling to that encyclical.
You also wrote:
"So, how many Gods do you claim exist? My Bible says that Abraham worshipped one God and one God alone. Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham - the one true God. An imperfect knowledge of God is not proof of another God."
I respond:
There is but one triune God: Holy is His name.
It is written:
John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
All those who fail to worship the Son (and those practicing Judaism and Islam both blapsheme and fail to worship Jesus) fail to worship God.
What those in Islam and Judaism worship is not god: just as Mormons and Hindus do not worship God.
The false prophet of the Muslims (may the name of the ungodly perish!) and those who follow him, are in need of salvation because the do not worship the one true God.
If you are following that ungodly prophet's teachings, or worshipping the god that he proclaims, then this verse is for you:
Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
May God's blessing rest on you,
-Turretinfan
Greetings! Dropped by to follow up...
ReplyDelete>"It's enough for me that Pope Pius XII adopted the term to describe his church in HUMANI GENERIS, item 27 (1950)."
Fair enough. Without the official Latin for comparison, I can neither confirm nor refute your citation. The words are in the English and Italian translations.
However, you might note that the official title remains the Catholic Church.
>"Since most Roman Catholics view HUMANI GENERIS as an ex cathedra encyclical, I'd be interested to hear whether you, as a Roman Catholic, dogmatically cling to that encyclical."
This is not an ex cathedra document. That said, I find nothing unacceptable.
I'd be curious as to your proof that "most Catholics" view the document as ex cathedra when most Catholics have likely never read nor likely heard of the document.
>"All those who fail to worship the Son ... fail to worship God."
I don't know how you got to "worship" from "honor". I honor my mother and father, but I do not worship them.
Reading all of John 5 its clear that you have taken a single verse well out of context and changed the wording to suit your needs.
>"What those in Islam and Judaism worship is not god"
Jesus was a Jew and practiced Judaism to the nth degree of perfection. Are you claiming that Jesus did not worship God? Who or what did Jesus and his fellows Jews (apostles) worship?
If Jesus did worship God, when did Jews cease worshipping God? Those events are not in any of my many Bibles. Your statement sounds like a tradition of man.
>"those who follow him, are in need of salvation because the do not worship the one true God."
While we both agree that Muslims are in need of salvation, as are non-Muslims, it is not because they don't recognize and worship the one true God. Its because they have an imperfect understanding of the one true God.
You may personally dislike the truth that Muslims worship and submit to the one true God, but that doesn't change the truth. You weren't born with your belief, so it had to have been taught to you. Who lied to you and for what reason?
God bless...
- Timothy
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteI had written (in defense of my use of the term "Roman Catholic Church"): "It's enough for me that Pope Pius XII adopted the term to describe his church in HUMANI GENERIS, item 27 (1950)."
You wrote: "Fair enough. Without the official Latin for comparison, I can neither confirm nor refute your citation. The words are in the English and Italian translations."
I respond: It is interesting that the original Latin is not publicly available via the Internet. I wonder why?
Do you know of any sanctioned translations that omit the term?
Or, alternatively, see the last paragraph of this linked document, including the referenced documents alleged by the Roman Catholic author to be "authoritative."
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_027.htm
You wrote: "However, you might note that the official title remains the Catholic Church."
I respond: Even if it were, that's a misleading title, since the RCC is not universal. I don't recall any authoritative document that makes it official, so I cannot immediately confirm your claim.
I had written: "Since most Roman Catholics view HUMANI GENERIS as an ex cathedra encyclical, I'd be interested to hear whether you, as a Roman Catholic, dogmatically cling to that encyclical."
You responded: "This is not an ex cathedra document. That said, I find nothing unacceptable."
I reply:
a) except that you bridle at the use of the term "Roman Catholic Church;" and
b) it seems to qualify under Vatican I's definition of "ex cathedra," and
c) in any event, the pope, in Humani Generis specifically indicates that the Ordinary Magisterium has the same authority (in terms of require assent of the faithful) as the Extraordinary Magesterium.
You wrote: "I'd be curious as to your proof that "most Catholics" view the document as ex cathedra when most Catholics have likely never read nor likely heard of the document."
I respond:
Good point, I withdraw my claim. I should further note that you are nonetheless required by the pope to assent to the teachings of this document, which is not readily available in the original language, as you pointed out.
I had written: "All those who fail to worship the Son ... fail to worship God."
You wrote: "I don't know how you got to "worship" from "honor". I honor my mother and father, but I do not worship them.
I respond:
How did I get there? Simply: Worship is one species of honor.
You wrote: "Reading all of John 5 its clear that you have taken a single verse well out of context and changed the wording to suit your needs."
I respond:
Not so. No further rebuttal is needed, so no further analysis has been provided.
I had written: "What those in Islam and Judaism worship is not god"
You responded: "Jesus was a Jew and practiced Judaism to the nth degree of perfection."
I reply: No, Jesus did not "practice Judaism," Jesus instead followed the teachings of the prophets and eschewed the traditions of men.
You wrote: "Are you claiming that Jesus did not worship God?"
I reply: No, I claim that those who practice Judaism do not worship God.
You wrote: Who or what did Jesus and his fellows Jews (apostles) worship?
I reply: The Triune God.
You wrote: "If Jesus did worship God, when did Jews cease worshipping God?"
I reply: In general, the Jews failed to worship God, though God preserved a faithful remnant. The apostacy of the Jews is repeatedly noted in the Old Testament, and is one reason for the judgment of both the diaspora (for Israel) and the exile (for Judah).
You wrote: "Those events are not in any of my many Bibles. Your statement sounds like a tradition of man."
I respond: What events do you speak of?
I had written: "those who follow him, are in need of salvation because the do not worship the one true God."
You wrote: "While we both agree that Muslims are in need of salvation, as are non-Muslims, it is not because they don't recognize and worship the one true God. Its because they have an imperfect understanding of the one true God."
I respond:
No, there is no agreement between us on the issue, because I do not agree that non-Muslims categorical need salvation. There are many non-Muslims who are already saved.
You wrote: "You may personally dislike the truth that Muslims worship and submit to the one true God, but that doesn't change the truth."
I respond:
The truth is that the triune God is not the god that the Muslims worship, and if you worship the same god as them, you should be in serious fear for your eternal state, since God is a Jealous God, indeed "Jealous" is His name.
You wrote: "You weren't born with your belief, so it had to have been taught to you."
I respond:
How would you go about proving that? Plato argued that when we learn we are simply discovering things we already know. Nevertheless, my knowledge of God is obtained from Scripture and from Christians who preached Scripture to me.
You wrote: "Who lied to you and for what reason?"
I respond:
I can answer the question of who lied to you: Vatican II. I can also give a general answer as to why: Vatican II was not a council of men of God, but of servants of Satan.
You wrote: "God bless..."
I respond: I hope for your sake that the one, true God will bless you, Timothy.
-Turretinfan
Greetings! Working my followup folder...
ReplyDelete>"I respond: It is interesting that the original Latin is not publicly available via the Internet. I wonder why?"
Not very interesting. With 2,00 years of church documents and a shortage of qualified Latin proof readers, I could understand why an fairly obscure church document was not yet available in Latin. I read Latin, among many languages, but I'm not qualified to proof read in anything but English.
Also, the Vatican website was recently redesigned, and the document may have been available and taken offline for updating.
>"Do you know of any sanctioned translations that omit the term?"
I don't know of any sanctioned translations, with or without the term.
>"...see the last paragraph of this linked document,..."
Yep, looks like he quoted the same sentence unchanged. Your point being?
>"... that's a misleading title, since the RCC is not universal."
You made the statement; now prove it.
>"... except that you bridle at the use of the term "Roman Catholic Church;"
Yes, I bridle when the term is deliberately used in a uncharitable way. You use was clearly intended to disparage Christ's Church.
>" it seems to qualify under Vatican I's definition of "ex cathedra,"
No, it doesn't seem to qualify as ex cathedra. There have been only two and this isn't one of them.
>"How did I get there? Simply: Worship is one species of honor."
When I compare the Greek in the 1894 Scrivener NT (John 5:23) to the Greek in the Septuagint OT (Exodus 20:12), I find the exact same Greek verb "tima", with the exact same tense and conjugation.
So, if "tima" means, or may be interpreted as, "worship" in John 5:23, it also means, or may be interpreted as, "worship" in Exodus 20:12. That would make the commandment; "Worship your father and mother."
Its clear that the author of John 5:23 used, and meant, "honor" and not "worship". Again, its clear that you have taken a single verse well out of context and changed the wording to suit your needs.
>"... there is no agreement between us on the issue,..."
I belive you may have misread something here.
You stated; "The false prophet of the Muslims... and those who follow him, are in need of salvation"
I stated; "...we both agree that Muslims are in need of salvation"
As we both clearly stated that Muslims are "in need of salvation", we are in agreement on that point.
>"There are many non-Muslims who are already saved."
Other than Christians, who are non-Muslims, what other saved non-Muslim groups are there and what is their means of salvation?
>"...you worship the same god as them, you should be in serious fear for your eternal state"
As the Bible clearly states that there exists but one God, I do, in fact, worship the same God as anyone else who worships God. I have nothing to fear in this regard.
Someone else's imperfect knowledge of God does not change the truth that there is one and only one God.
>"...my knowledge of God is obtained from Scripture and from Christians who preached Scripture to me."
Would those have been fallible or infallible Christians? Who preached to them: fallible or infallible Christians?
>"I can answer the question of who lied to you: Vatican II."
Changing the subject. That's a defensive tactic and generally appears when one has the weaker position.
(Actually, I recently bought a used 3-volume set on Vatican II. I hope to be much more knowledgable on Vatican II by Fall.)
>"I hope for your sake that the one, true God will bless you, Timothy."
Thank you. That's very charitable of you. He has in many ways.
God bless...
- Timothy
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteI had written: It is interesting that the original Latin is not publicly available via the Internet. I wonder why?
You respond: Not very interesting. With 2,00 years of church documents and a shortage of qualified Latin proof readers, I could understand why an fairly obscure church document was not yet available in Latin. I read Latin, among many languages, but I'm not qualified to proof read in anything but English.
I respond: It's mildly amusing that you twice misspelled the word "proofread" in that paragraph.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proofread
Less amusing are:
a) your excuses for the RCC posting a document in five different languages, but not the "authoratative" language; and
b) your claim that the document is "fairly obscure," which only avoids being a false claim by its mushiness;
I had written: "Do you know of any sanctioned translations that omit the term?"
You responded: "I don't know of any sanctioned translations, with or without the term."
I respond: There are translations posted on the Vatican's website. Are you unaware of that, or are simply playing some kind of word game over what consitutes a "sanctioned" translation? In any event, do you know of any translation at all that omits the term.
I had written: "...see the last paragraph of this linked document,..."
You responded: Yep, looks like he quoted the same sentence unchanged. Your point being?
I respond: a Roman Catholic source quoting a Roman Catholic document, in Latin, that calls the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church.
In the midst of making excuses for the absence of an authoratitive version of the document being available, did you lose track of the thread?
I had pointed out:"... that's a misleading title, since the RCC is not universal."
You responded: You made the statement; now prove it.
I reply: I made what statement? It is the RCC that calls itself universal. They made the false assertion, they should be tasked with proving it, not me.
I had written: "... except that you bridle at the use of the term "Roman Catholic Church;"
You wrote: Yes, I bridle when the term is deliberately used in a uncharitable way.
I respond: If that were your real accusation, you ought to have been up front about it, instead of revealing it only once your apparently accusation of innaccurate nomenclature had been conclusively disproven.
You also said: You use was clearly intended to disparage Christ's Church.
I respond: The RCC is not Christ's Church, so your accusation is false. Regardless, however, I call it what it is to distinguish it from the true Catholic church, not to "disparage" it.
I had written: " it seems to qualify under Vatican I's definition of "ex cathedra,"
You responded: No, it doesn't seem to qualify as ex cathedra.
I answer: Under which of the three criteria of Vatican I's definition do you argue it fails to qualify?
You also claimed: "There have been only two and this isn't one of them."
I answer: I've heard that claim by RCC apologists before. Feel free to support that claim with analysis, if there is analysis. Also, feel free to name the two for our tiny reading audience.
You had written: "How did I get there? Simply: Worship is one species of honor."
You replied: When I compare the Greek in the 1894 Scrivener NT (John 5:23) to the Greek in the Septuagint OT (Exodus 20:12), I find the exact same Greek verb "tima", with the exact same tense and conjugation.
I interject: You must enjoy "Where's Waldo" ...
You continue: "So, if "tima" means, or may be interpreted as, "worship" in John 5:23, it also means, or may be interpreted as, "worship" in Exodus 20:12."
I respond: No, that is not how translation works. Nevertheless, neither is it my claim now (nor has it been) that one should translate the word "honor" as "worship" in John 5:23.
You continue: That would make the commandment; "Worship your father and mother."
I respond: Woodenly tranlating the same word the same way everywhere it is found can have even more bizarre results than that one. Nevertheless, I have made no assertion that "honor" in John 5:32 should be translated "worship."
You continued: "Its clear that the author of John 5:23 used, and meant, "honor" and not "worship".
I respond: "the author of John 5:23"??? John 5:23 is a record of Jesus' own words. Contrary to your suggestion there is nothing to indicate (either in the context or in the choice of the word used) that when God speaks of honoring he means to exclude worship of God as one species of the honor due to God.
You continued: Again, its clear that you have taken a single verse well out of context and changed the wording to suit your needs.
I respond: Not so. What is clear is that you have misrepresented and/or misunderstood my explanation.
But please feel free to explain how worshipping God is not one way in which we honor God, or to phrase it as I did before your false accusation of taking the verse out of context, that worship is a species of honor.
I had written: "The false prophet of the Muslims... and those who follow him, are in need of salvation"
You point out that you had responded: "...we both agree that Muslims are in need of salvation"
But you overlook that you had added: "as are non-Muslims"
You continued: "As we both clearly stated that Muslims are "in need of salvation", we are in agreement on that point."
I respond: We are not even truly in agreement on that point, because you mean something different from what I do when you say "salvation." Yes, we can use the same words, but that does not always imply agreement.
I had written: "There are many non-Muslims who are already saved."
You responded: Other than Christians, who are non-Muslims, what other saved non-Muslim groups are there and what is their means of salvation?
I reply: The only means of salvation is the sovereign grace of God. Those who God, in his grace, regenerates, worship the Father and the Son. Such folks are properly termed Christians because they worship God. All such as God saves love God and worship Him.
I had said: "...you worship the same god as them, you should be in serious fear for your eternal state"
You respond: As the Bible clearly states that there exists but one God, I do, in fact, worship the same God as anyone else who worships God. I have nothing to fear in this regard.
I reply: Those worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth. If you worship what the Muslims worship, you do not worship God.
You state: Someone else's imperfect knowledge of God does not change the truth that there is one and only one God.
I respond: They do not know God, and if you think that the one that they worship is God, it is likely you also do not know God. Examine yourself, Timothy!
I stated: "...my knowledge of God is obtained from Scripture and from Christians who preached Scripture to me."
You replied: Would those have been fallible or infallible Christians? Who preached to them: fallible or infallible Christians?
I respond: In case it was unclear what the Reformed position is, all men are fallible, Timothy: save Christ alone. There is no substitute for Christ, the Word of God.
I had written: "I can answer the question of who lied to you: Vatican II."
You respond: Changing the subject. That's a defensive tactic and generally appears when one has the weaker position.
I reply: My position that Christ is God, that there is no other God, and that the Muslims do not worship Christ is plenty strong.
You wrote: "(Actually, I recently bought a used 3-volume set on Vatican II. I hope to be much more knowledgable on Vatican II by Fall.)"
I reply: Perhaps at that time you will be able to reconcile the teachings of the ECF's regarding whether heretics worship God with the lies of Vatican II.
-Turretinfan