Just wanting to flesh this out a little... How would you define "One" How would you define Apostolic? How would you define Catholic?
That's a great question Dave. Many define catholic along the lines of the formula of St. Vincent of Lerins: "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike. But then there is also the Athanasian formula: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence."
Regarding St Vincent of Lerins' maxim: "that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all" -- no doctrine fits this. Doctrine in the early churches was quite varied, and the situation was fluid.
I know some are going to say that bishops in apostolic succession is the very definition of apostolicity. However, that cannot be true unless tradition trumps scripture. Scripture knows nothing of the bishopric as a third order of ministry. I thus hold to the classical Anglican position that the historic episcopate is for the benefit of the church, not of its essence. I would say that the Apostles Creed is sufficient to define apostolicity and catholicity, as being the sufficient statement of the apostolic and thus scriptural faith. That, plus traditional, Biblical morality.
Another issue is "always" -- the RC and the EO will say they have "always" held the same faith -- of course they don't agree with each other Is always the first 100 yrs, 300 yrs, 1000 yrs, etc? Where is that faith documented? (I've seen RC and EO argue about what their historical documents say -- who's right?) Even in scriptures we see issues occurring in the church almost immediately -- which means where do you find that document that has the orthodox faith in it, i.e what is the standard of faith? I guess that's why we have the Creed(s)
Great point Celtic1, personally, I think "apostolic" means following the way founded by the Apostles. That way is best chronicled in the New Testament. Therefore, an apostolic church is a Biblical, new testament church. Since Apostle means "one sent out" it also means that an apostolic church is a missionary and evangelical church. We have been commissioned take make disciples of all nations. The apostles also operated under the direction of the Holy Ghost, thus we, as an apostolic church, must empower and guide ourselves with that very same power of the Holy Ghost in all that we do. Apostolic succession is more of a safeguard to me than an indispensible mark of the church. All baptisms and confirmations go back to the apostles, who baptized in the name of the triune god and spread the gospel, thus all succeed from those apostles. Does that mean that bishops must have been personally touched by those who were touched by those with the proper pedigree? I don't know, that seems a little overly mechanistic to me. St. Paul himself admitted that he was made an apostle by God not by any man. Having said that, I can see that Apostolic succession is very helpful in identifying orthodoxy versus heterodoxy. But it certainly fool-proof. Many of the folks on this forum barely consider the RCC christian at all, and yet they have as solid an apostolic pedigree as any. That is why Apostolic, in my mind, means first and foremost, a church that follows the Scritpures which were written or dictated by the Apostles themselves.
The historian NR Needham makes an interesting point on the origin of the use of the word "catholic, that it's use came out of the gnostic controversy. The Church acquired a new name for itself from the gnostic controversy...by calling itself catholic, the early Church was setting itself apart from Gnosticism The different Gnostic sects had no unity - they all taught conflicting doctrines; but the true Church, founded on the faith of the apostles, taught the same doctrines throughout the world (The ages of the church fathers, p104) Right here I guess is why labelling ourselves simply as Christian is not always enough. With other sects using the title we sometimes need to go further to define ourselves apart from them
I am far too weak to define what I believe about these things. Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia does a good job here. When I confess the Creed, I say & mean these things: One: unified by that faith in Jesus Christ which as announced by Him, His Apostles, and their successors. (Holy: its members are set-apart from the lusts & sins of this world, called to the greater life: the love & mercy of God.) Catholic: according to the whole; genuine; universal; seeing the Scriptures through the lens of all the Fathers. Confessing one God, the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation & two natures of the Word of God. Apostolic: following the doctrine of the Word of God as written by the Apostles, making it the measure of all faith. I consider adding "episcopal in nature" to the definition of "Apostolic", but I am deeply concerned that so many millions of my brethren are excluded from the mystical Body of Christ by this definition.
This is very important, so please let me explain my logic a little. Though I tend to be harsh about people accepting Episcopacy, the words of the Bible gnaw at the back of my mind regarding "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic". Convincing though episcopacy may be, what does the Lord Christ say? "Whosoever believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; whosoever liveth & believeth in me shall never die". Note - whoever believes in me and is in Communion with the Church of Rome? Whoever believes in me and is in Communion with the Church of England? Whoever believes in me and is under a validly-consecrated bishop? No. In Him, whosoever liveth and believeth - that person shall never die. How do we become part of Him (One), live in Him (Holy), and believe in Him (Catholic)? Via the doctrine preserved & delivered by Peter, Paul, all the Apostles, and the evangelists who were authorized by them (Apostolic). For who can believe unless he hears? Who can hear unless it is preached to him? Who can preach unless he is sent? It started through the Apostles, was preserved in the Fathers, and revived every day, for our sakes, and for the sakes of our children, until He comes again. All of this comes down to one thing, made explicit in Romans 10:9 - "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." If I had the same spirit which so guided Christ, I would never have had any anger in my heart against my brethren. The fact that I have had such hatred means that I need Christ. That is the greatest comfort of the Catholic faith - even the person who might appear holy, or Christlike, is never Christ Himself - but Christ freely supplies the deficiency by His precious Death. Only the God & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ can supply His Free Spirit to establish us again, after anger and hatred and sin... and here He is.
By the way, I also think the Four Marks of the Church are also meant to be exhortations to the persons confessing them. By saying... ... "One", you are to strive to hold unity: with Christ & with all Christians. ... "Holy", you are to strive to live worthy of your calling. ... "Catholic", you are to strive to hold to The Faith in God. ... "Apostolic", you are to strive to become wise in the everlasting Gospel, which is passed down to you.
I would differ with you by saying we are made members of Christ by grace through faith, upon which we are baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ. This occurs apart from any outward ritual.
First, it is necessary to look at the context of this saying, which suggests a couple of meanings: (1) It is contrasting physical birth with spiritual birth, (2) Water is signifying the cleansing act of the Holy Spirit. It cannot mean that water baptism is necessary for salvation because this would conflict with and contradict other scripture. If anyone is depending on an outward ritual to put him right with God, he is still in his sins.
You are talking rubbish to my mind, you've adopted the garments of the papacy! You are your own pope! According to Tertullian, The Holy Spirit moved on the face of the Waters and consecrated the Element of Water, setting it apart as the Vehicle of baptism. Again, I repeat, baptism is by water and by word and we are made members of Christ & Children of God. It is the Church who decides and except in two cases already mentioned previously Water is essential. It might not be for liberals, methodists or others of that ilk, such as neo anglicans, it is however for us! Further baptism is declared to be necessary to Salvation, by our Lord, With two exceptions ,'Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Blood! Read further Christian Faith. C.B. Moss. Christian Dogma. Darwell Stone!
I am happy to be able to say that there are a great many evangelical Anglicans of that "ilk" who believe as I do, that we are saved by grace through faith, as the Bible says, and that doesn't require any outward ritual, incantation, or priestly mediation. Scripture is my authority; mere humans like Tertullian are yours. Tell me, do you also give authority to Tertullian's views in his Montanist days? It is the scripture which decides for it is primary, and when traditions of men conflict with same, these traditions must take a back seat. You accuse me of being a papist when it is you who have adopted popery by making tradition equal with scripture. That is decidedly not Anglican. Your "Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood" are nothing but vain traditions of men. If you are depending on an outward ritual and priestly incantation to put you in the Body of Christ, you are still in your sins. We are saved by grace through faith; that is all that is necessary for salvation. Physical water does not regenerate; the Holy Spirit regenerates when one comes to faith in Christ.
To Celtic! It's not a product of my whit or anything like that, but it is as heartfelt now as then! I do not love thee Dr, Fell The reason why i cannot tell, but this i know and know full well, I do not love thee Doctor Fell! It was written, the above ,just about the time of the restoration, regarding Dr, Fell the restored headmaster of Wykenham College, as far as `I remember! Dr Fell was a High Churchman, who for twenty long years had remained loyal to the Church & its martyr king! The author was some disillusioned scholar!