Acts 2:42 and small churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholictiger

Guest
there are some protestants who believe that churches should be a small family community and they base it off

[BIBLEDRB]acts 2:42[/BIBLEDRB]

so how do you justify what Catholics do in regards to this passage, and how do you tell these people that you should go beyond a small family community for your church?

I must add something to this some translations say fellowship.
 
Where does it follow that this passage means churches should be a small, family community? I don’t see it at all. A church should serve as many members as come to it.
 
Read Acts 6:1-7, which shows how the Church was growing so fast that people came to the leaders of the Church and complained that there were not enough priests; some were being neglected (the widows)-- there were not enough priests to provide the daily ministration (religious services) to all. They then ordained 7 priests for this task, and emphasized that they would be assigned to ‘serving at table’ (the Lords Supper), by saying that it was not their duty to do so, and that it was their duty instead to tend to the Word of God, showing the unique duties of the priests and the bishops within the Church. Following this, the passage mentions that the number of followers multiplied exceedingly in Jerusalem. It doesn’t say they setup a bunch of small independent community churches.
 
JonathonofOhio said:
Read Acts 6:1-7, which shows how the Church was growing so fast that people came to the leaders of the Church and complained that there were not enough priests; some were being neglected (the widows)-- there were not enough priests to provide the daily ministration (religious services) to all. They then ordained 7 priests for this task, and emphasized that they would be assigned to ‘serving at table’ (the Lords Supper), by saying that it was not their duty to do so, and that it was their duty instead to tend to the Word of God, showing the unique duties of the priests and the bishops within the Church. Following this, the passage mentions that the number of followers multiplied exceedingly in Jerusalem. It doesn’t say they setup a bunch of small independent community churches.
Click to expand...
They were Deacons, not Priests
 
ConstantineTG said:
They were Deacons, not Priests
Click to expand...
It does not specify that they were deacons, but upon further research it seems that historical documents concur that their official title was in fact ‘deacon’.

Regardless of title, the passage still shows that they didn’t each start independent small community churches, and that is the primary point here; it was not my intention to go off into a side discussion of what titles members of the early church held. As this passage indicates, as well as others, it was perfectly fine for the Church to create offices and then fill them and assign specific duties. If you’d like to have a discussion on that though, then please start a new thread and I will be happy to participate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top