Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Nicea325]

Lincoln7:

Naturally I don’t have identical views as you on New Covenant priesthood. The work does not assume there was no single head, but simply demonstrates that the governance of the church in Rome of this time is far more presbytarian than the slightly later episcopal model. So it’s not arguing that a single bishop idea is somehow heretical, i don’t think that. It’s one form of church governance, I don’t adhere to it, but by no means think it heretical, far from it!

First of all, no one or even the RCC is not claiming that church goverance was more fluid in very beginning. However, like all institutions run and operated by humans,they change due to growth,arising issues,management,etc,etc. Problem I encounter with many Protestants is the idea or belief the church has to remain in the exact model of the early church. How is Christ Church to spread globally,if it is to remain in a shell or in the dark? Many Protestants claim to follow the NT church model to the last letter,but many do not even have deacons,priests or bishops as clearly stated in the NT. The office of the diaconate was founded by the Apostles in the Acts of the Apostles.

There are indeed no protests from the church in Corinth, they rightly saw that the rebuke from the church in Rome was correct, hence the testimony of Dionysius that was posted ealier. I’m not debating this, or the importance of the church of Rome of the time, it was a vastly important church.

And still is important.

I’m simply stating that the letter is not from a single bishop, or pope, but is from the plurality of elders, all of which are equal,

Here is where you are in error. Only ONE bishop wrote the letter,not a plurality of elders. Yes a mention of elders,but I cannot find a place stating plurality of power. Where does the letter state all are equals? Is there reference in the text?

which I think means a lot when compared to Vatican 1’s comments on For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age…his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

It seems as much is not the case, which I think needs to be addressed as it is very important for our discussions on our respective authorities.

It is the case. Let me ask you something? When and where does Jesus or the 12 set up a “democratic” government for the church? Rememebr Jesus lived in 1st century Palestine and they had kings,not a democracy. Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven,not the democracy of Heaven. The term or phrase Kingdom says a lot. If a hiearchal structures were such an issue for Jesus, the 12 and the early church, I am curious why Jesus himself never rebuked the OT kingships or Rome’s imperial structure?

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

Im unsure how his conclusions that Calvin believed in things his particular church did not therefore led him to reject all of the Theology of Calvin and then furthermore to reach the conclusion that Rome is the one true church to follow.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi again Nicea,

First of all, no one or even the RCC is not claiming that church goverance was more fluid in very beginning. However, like all institutions run and operated by humans,they change due to growth,arising issues,management,etc,etc. Problem I encounter with many Protestants is the idea or belief the church has to remain in the exact model of the early church. How is Christ Church to spread globally,if it is to remain in a shell or in the dark? Many Protestants claim to follow the NT church model to the last letter,but many do not even have deacons,priests or bishops as clearly stated in the NT. The office of the diaconate was founded by the Apostles in the Acts of the Apostles.

I think that’s clearly what’s said in the statement I posted from Vatican 1: that always has it been believed that Peter has had monarchial successors in Rome…
I also do think that the system of local church government should resemble that of the NT; if it was good enough for Paul why not for us now? We do have deacons in Protestantism, as well as priests; the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9) Bishop is a role that has changed a lot over the years. But this is all potentially off topic.

Here is where you are in error. Only ONE bishop wrote the letter,not a plurality of elders. Yes a mention of elders,but I cannot find a place stating plurality of power. Where does the letter state all are equals? Is there reference in the text?

Where does the letter say its from only 1 Bishop?

On equality in the church, the author always speaks of a “we”, which is always a reference to the whole church, never is it a royal we as is seen in later monarchies. The letter does not even bear the name of Clement… But the church of Rome.

It is the case. Let me ask you something? When and where does Jesus or the 12 set up a “democratic” government for the church? Rememebr Jesus lived in 1st century Palestine and they had kings,not a democracy. Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven,not the democracy of Heaven. The term or phrase Kingdom says a lot. If a hiearchal structures were such an issue for Jesus, the 12 and the early church, I am curious why Jesus himself never rebuked the OT kingships or Rome’s imperial structure?

The Apostles set up local churches with plurality leadership in each one. I don’t know why one would think I object to church authrotiy? I just don’t ascribe to the RCC model of it… On The Lord rebuking the Roman Imperial lot however, it’s not something really major in our thread, by there is an excellent article by NT Wright on this here which you may enjoy at some point: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_God_Caesar.pdf
So I’m not attacking church authority, far far from it, I simply don’t adhere to the RCC model of it.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Pablope,

How is that a good thing? If you deviated from the original reformers…then what are you still protesting from? Does it mean the reformation has lost its course…and you are now inventing new things to protest?

Forgive me if I was unclear, my question was intended as rhetorical in nature.

Anders studied Calvinism…his denomination, I think from the Article, professed to follow the teachings of Calvin…and he found that his denomination deviated from what Calvin taught.

With respect though, how does this make Rome right?

Why would I believe their exegesis?

I could say the same for that offered by Catholic theologians, in the end, we must all make the choice.

Where does it state the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith? Where did they get the authority for their exegesis? Who sent them? Which apostle did they submit their teachings to?

Well as it is inspired and infallible Apostlic teaching, and that which is God breathed, it takes precedence. The catholic model places the church in a position above the scriptures. From my perspective, they were sent and raised up by God, just like Paul; “Paul, an apostle-not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (Galatians 1:1) Men who to the Protestant, were raised up to reform the church of Christ. They submitted their teachings to the apostolic teaching as recorded in scripture.

Right…you tradition colors the way you interpret scripture…but from the article Ecclesial Deism…And Anders conclusion is that those who profess to follow calvinism today have deviated from Calvin’s original teachings.

That is anders conclusion for his particular denomination. I am happy to stick with orthodox reformed such as Sproul to help guide me on this one. Also, does not your tradition also colour the way you look at scripture with respect?

I did not get that from the article…I got the sense Calvin wanted unity…doctrinal unity…and outside of Geneva, without the force of the State, Calvinism splintered.

Who doesn’t want unity? But to state that Calvin didnt have in mind caring for the church and people of God is unfounded, even a brief reading of him will utterly dismiss such a notion. I’d read Calvin himself with respect for what he thought.

Evasion, Lincs?
I do not know what the connection of the donation of constantine has anything to do with it…that spurions donation only started in the 800s or so…well beyond the establishment of the papacy.
The question you have not answered it…why would he rely on a secular authority to gain the right to excommunicate?

Not evasion, simply asking if we are to pursue this line of questioning that we apply it equally to both sides. Calvins right to excommunicate came from him being a pastor, just as my pastor has the same duty. I do not as yet know the workings of sixteenth century Geneva fully, but I can’t accept mr Cross’ interpretation of it as the end of all discussion on the matter, as I have yet to look into it fully myself.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi again Nicea,

I think that’s clearly what’s said in the statement I posted from Vatican 1: that always has it been believed that Peter has had monarchial successors in Rome…
I also do think that the system of local church government should resemble that of the NT; if it was good enough for Paul why not for us now? We do have deacons in Protestantism, as well as priests; the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9) Bishop is a role that has changed a lot over the years. But this is all potentially off topic.

Where does the letter say its from only 1 Bishop?

On equality in the church, the author always speaks of a “we”, which is always a reference to the whole church, never is it a royal we as is seen in later monarchies. The letter does not even bear the name of Clement… But the church of Rome.

The Apostles set up local churches with plurality leadership in each one. I don’t know why one would think I object to church authrotiy? I just don’t ascribe to the RCC model of it… On The Lord rebuking the Roman Imperial lot however, it’s not something really major in our thread, by there is an excellent article by NT Wright on this here which you may enjoy at some point: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_God_Caesar.pdf
So I’m not attacking church authority, far far from it, I simply don’t adhere to the RCC model of it.

Regards

Lincs.

I beg your pardon? It does bear his name. Clement of Rome. If it does not bear his name,then tell us who wrote it? Name the elders who contributed to it, if all are equal? Where does it say one bishop? The written document is called St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians…not: The elders letter to the Corinthians. If are all equal,then why exlude the other elders on the letter-head? I thought there was not ONE head? Again, just because it says “WE” does not conclude without a shred of doubt their was not one head. Again,where in the letter does it state all are equal? If all equal as you propose,then I find it odd their names are not mentioned to clearly show the distant church that all are equal and no one bishop is head.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, I think there some things we can conclude.

For sure the Bible wasn’t left as its own authority.

For sure it wasn’t left for one individual to interpret.

Oh He left a Church.

So we see the Apostles church’s in time. Still out their, they are like arguing siblings. I believe I read some of Irenaeus on another topic though, same language little more stronger leaning toward Rome. Rome had the position of honor. They say in Rome God is progressive.in the I AM as He is in His Church. They say before you can command, you must first learn to obey. Fulton Sheen I believe

 

[Lincoln7]

I beg your pardon? It does bear his name. Clement of Rome. If it does not bear his name,then tell us who wrote it? Name the elders who contributed to it, if all are equal? Where does it say one bishop? The written document is called St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians…not: The elders letter to the Corinthians. If are all equal,then why exlude the other elders on the letter-head? I thought there was not ONE head? Again, just because it says “WE” does not conclude without a shred of doubt their was not one head. Again,where in the letter does it state all are equal? If all equal as you propose,then I find it odd their names are not mentioned to clearly show the distant church that all are equal and no one bishop is head.

Peace

Hi Nicea,

The letter does not bear his name… earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html - the text is available here.

Who wrote it; “The Church of God which sojourns at Rome” according to the text itself, not a monarchial bishop. The reason it is identified as being from Clement is due to his role in the eldership of the roman church which the link I posted earlier describes; he is a communications man, who takes communications and forwards it to the council of elders who run the church. (1). Monarchial episcopacy simply isn’t in Rome at this early date.

Kind regards

Lincs.

(1) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

 

[mackbrislawn]

Lincoln7;9269341]
I also do think that the system of local church government should resemble that of the NT; if it was good enough for Paul why not for us now? We do have deacons in Protestantism.

It seems that in Paul’s earliest congregations, there was no church government. These churches were charismatic, in which individuals were given gifts by the Holy Spirit. But chaos resulted, so it was not good enough for Paul. That’s why later on elders and overseers had to be established. We see a progression from the idea that each individual was led by the Holy Spirit, to each church via its elders and overseers led by the Holy Spirit. But even that was not enough, as chaos between congregations eventually resulted. Therefore the historical progression went from the Holy Spirit guiding the individual, to guiding congregational leaders, and then to the Holy Spirit guiding the Church in general. This was decided to be manifested by the Church in Rome since it had the strongest apostolic background, Peter and Paul having been martyred there.

The apostles may not have addressed this problem in their day, but it did not matter because Jesus promised He would always be with His Church. So the Church had the power to decide certain things even in the absence of the deceased apostles.

Whatever you may think, in my opinion it is only due to the presence of a strong central church that Christianity did not sink into the morass of the numerous other mystery cults prevalent at the time. Christianity and scripture would not exist today if it were not for the existence of strong leadership.

P.S. Deacons were instituted in the Jerusalem church. But I wonder if Paul had that practice in his churches?

 

[PRmerger]

But you would only accept the Bible and/or the Church because it would seem reasonable to do so, and so you also rely on your own fallible reasoning. If what you say is true, you also create a god in your own image, and you do not conform your views to God’s.

But, there is no alternative.

No, Brandon. I accept what is Truth because that has been revealed.

Truth trumps everything.

You are, I assume, familiar with the story "The Emperor’s New Clothes"?

He was not so much concerned with truth, but rather with what appeared reasonable. It seemed reasonable to him to believe that he was dressed in great finery. When, in truth, he was parading around buck naked.

As someone pointed out–how reasonable is it to believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

How reasonable is it to give our cloak to someone who has none?

How reasonable is it to believe that God is a Trinity?

No, we believe it because that is what has been revealed.

 

[Lincoln7]

Mackbrislawn,

It seems that in Paul’s earliest congregations, there was no church government. These churches were charismatic, in which individuals were given gifts by the Holy Spirit. But chaos resulted, so it was not good enough for Paul. That’s why later on elders and overseers had to be established.

A church can be charismatic, in that it still has the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 etc, and still have a form of church government and organisation. I think it’s clear that this was the standard of the churches established by Paul and indeed all the Apostles. The “chaos” that is seen in places, notably in Corinth is not the result of no church governance, but rather of misuses of gifts. Acts 11:30, recording events at a very early stage in Pauls ministry speaks of elders. Acts 14:23; “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” Paul’s first missionary journey then it seems had him appointing elders, this in around AD48(1), as such it appears this was Paul’s pattern from very early on, present in the earliest churches he built. But to put all this on topic: as has been shown above, this model also prevailed and was the standard for the church in Rome until the mid second century.

This was decided to be manifested by the Church in Rome since it had the strongest apostolic background, Peter and Paul having been martyred there

Certainly, but I think to leave this as the sole reason, doesn’t tell everything. I think we need to remember that being situated in the imperial capital, this large church drew not a little of its honour from there…

Whatever you may think, in my opinion it is only due to the presence of a strong central church that Christianity did not sink into the morass of the numerous other mystery cults prevalent at the time. Christianity and scripture would not exist today if it were not for the existence of strong leadership.

Remember I don’t decry strong church leadership, far from it. I just don’t agree with the model of it tht comes from the CC.

Kind regards

Lincs

(1) - blueletterbible.org/study/pnt/pnt02.cfm

 

[GaryTaylor]

We are looking at Rome in antiquity not debating the Pontificate 2012 [at the moment]. So lets breath and step back thus we miss the Word of God here.

What is happening is St Irenaeus wrote “Aversus Haereses” after being given the Word from Polycarp of Smyrna, who clearly knew the beloved John. Now I could talk Authority of the Church all day, but theres a bigger picture here. John spent the last years of his life in Ephesus. This sacred Tradition he wrote in his Gospel which is the Church and the Gospel of John came from right here. And what it established through John/Polycarp and Irenaeus is the resounding truth of the Eucharist.,and listen…Mary.

Authority is not the battle here, it is preserving the Truth of Christ through time. They battled the largest empire ever established by a man in Rome and Caesar Augustus. Predicted by Daniel, confirmed in Revelation.

While its true and we can see the heirarchy of the Church is developing in the first century, whats more important is the entire “Orthodox” Church is now developed in Christ the Eucharist and in Mary with the Three Mysteries. Course to further demonstrate my point which I feel no need to, we could further read St Irenaeus who writes about this Tradition in his work in depth, which with the last comment above of his you kinda get his point about the Eucharist. In truth he is also explaining the Gospel of John. John is the Gospel which brings about the book of Hours and Signs. The Hour and Sign is… He is leaving in this Gospel, it is not alone the Hour of death but the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ which after His timed death when He willed to die at the specific moment He chose. He Jesus Christ was not only with His Apostles as Human/Divine, he now completes what He has with so much difficulty and patience been trying to explain to the Apostles. The Bigger Picture of Eternity and HOW He will interact with His Church for Eternity. Through the Real Presence of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Read through John which fresh eyes now and watch the Hours and Signs come to life. This is what ALL the Apostolic Churchs hearts are beating to in Communion now in this period of Irenaeus. Jesus is not just with His Apostles on earth now. He becomes the Living God of Revelation and is now with His Church “Father the Hour has Come” as the Divine God, just as stated, He returned to the Apostles after His asension and confirms His already given Word to the Apostles. “These men you have gave Me, they have kept your Word”. “I pray not for the world but for those you gave me”. Course one can read the Gospel and see the build up preceeding chaper 18, 2 Wedding at Cana “my Hour” 4 and 6 come to mind. Oh make no mistake here Jesus established the Liturgy of the Eucharist as the Hour, in the Hour of His Death on the Cross at the Hour and His chosen moment. “Let me solemly, assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood, You have No Life!” “The man who feeds on this Bread shall live forever.”

However, in 20:22 “Peace be with you” the Lord appears “Receive the Holy Spirit, if you forgive mens sins they are forgiven, if you hold them bound they are held bound”. You, the YOU is the Apostolic Church’s and its Elect. And for certain they exist Today!

Christ not only nails death to the Cross but He established His Church and his Bishops through His Apostles to continue that church, and until His return. Who was it at the foot of the Cross? Oh the 3-Marys and John.

I do believe St Irenaeus in no uncertain term makes this abundanly clear what has happened in this Church a few decades later. As did John in the Gospel. This Church is now up running through Acts and Peter and Paul, and the all the Apostolic Churchs in Communion. The Authority, so “somewhere” down the line lest man should forget. The History and Truth remains intact.

The who has the most Authority etc etc is not of issue. The Apostolic Churchs all have valid lines of Apostolic Succession, they have the Authority and always have, still do. Rome certainly proves this and is a pivotal position in the Chain.

The Book while the greatest book ever written in not its own authority, and its foolish thinking to believe any man is his pride is its Authority. The Mystical Body of Jesus Christ is guided from the Spiritual to the present moment in Christs Everlasting Covenant.

There is no other truth, that is the truth handed down from God. The rest is vain glory no different then the heretics Irenaeus speaks on.

We in the USA have become a country of heretics who somehow believe we are Blessed. We have gone way of course from the very real Orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Churchs. And we know them because they keep Gods Word through His 3-Mysteries and have throughout time.

Some hear the this Truth and accept it immediately, Some hear it and it takes time to catch on. Some never accept this truth. The message is not for anyone to conceive in their own mind. That is why and how it is opposed and oppressed. The Word was the Word and is the Word. And it has came through antiquity to 2012. What you do with it in your world? Well life is in your hands. Here we pray for the World and the one to come.

The Gospel of John now becomes Massive through Apostolic Succession and Irenaeus and all those who seen the bigger picture of what transpired in real time, a very long time ago. So too today that Tradition lives. It is intact.

I don’t know the future of the USA, I do know Orthodoxy is becoming further a passing reality here. Not a good sign nor is it in the West. Empires disappear very quickly in Gods Kingdom. When He states Behold I come quickly! Take it literal. He intended it to be.

The Truth.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Gary,

I think we risk taking the thread off course to another Eucharistic discussion here. To keep it on topic I feel I should only address certain parts of your posts, hope that’s ok with you Gary, feel free to PM me at any point if you want to discuss other topics!

The who has the most Authority etc etc is not of issue. The Apostolic Churchs all have valid lines of Apostolic Succession, they have the Authority and always have, still do. Rome certainly proves this and is a pivotal position in the Chain.

I think that as I’ve shown above, this is not the case in Rome, there is no monarchial bishop, there is a plurality of elders. I don’t see the authrotiy present in the CC, namely the magisterium, as being present in the earliest church…

And again if I may ask Gary, do you hold to material sufficiency on this matter or partim partim. It will help me understand things a bit better.

Thanks

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Linc you have to read all of Irenaeus to further understand the magnitude of his message and no he is not just talking Authority of the church. He is explaining the entire church in its manifestation. He used the same wording to explain all the elect of the church, as I mentioned much earlier in this thread he also explains the Apostolic Succession. To further show what has been discussed I would have to venture to another area.

For example

Book 4 Chapter 26.
If any one, therefore, reads the Scriptures with attention, he will find in them an account of Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling (vocationis). For Christ is the treasure which was hid in the field, that is, in this world (for “the field is the world” ); but the treasure hid in the Scriptures is Christ, since He was pointed out by means of types and parables. Hence His human nature could not be understood, prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of Christ. And therefore it was said to Daniel the prophet: “Shut up the words, and seal the book even to the time of consummation, until many learn, and knowledge be completed. For at that time, when the dispersion shall be accomplished, they shall know all these things.” But Jeremiah also says, “In the last days they shall understand these things.” For every prophecy, before its fulfilment, is to men [full of] enigmas and ambiguities. But when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition. And for this reason, indeed, when at this present time the law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son of God, which took place in human nature; but when it is read by the Christians, it is a treasure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ, and explained, both enriching the understanding of men, and showing forth the wisdom of God and declaring His dispensations with regard to man, and forming the kingdom of Christ beforehand, and preaching by anticipation the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem, and proclaiming beforehand that the man who loves God shall arrive at such excellency as even to see God, and hear His word, and from the hearing of His discourse be glorified to such an extent, that others cannot behold the glory of his countenance, as was said by Daniel: “Those who do understand, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever.” Thus, then, I have shown it to be, if any one read the Scriptures. For thus it was that the Lord discoursed with, the disciples after His resurrection from the dead, proving to them from the Scriptures themselves “that Christ must suffer, and enter into His glory, and that remission of sins should be preached in His name throughout all the world.” And the disciple will be perfected, and [rendered] like the householder, “who bringeth forth from his treasure things new and old.”

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.

But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God-namely, strange doctrines-shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron. But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did.

This is another great chapter relevant to what I’m talking about as a whole, but as I stated I do want to stick on point here with the OP also.

In the isolated paragraph you get a better understanding as I mentioned earlier.

Peace

 

[Lincoln7]

Gary,

I’m aware of the comments made by Irenaeus on the succession… But I don’t see it quite the way you do. There is a post on this here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/michael-liccione-is-mistaken-on.html
I would also check out the dialouge that goes on in it’s comments section which is relevant for this. I still stand by my position, tht Vatican 1 with its claim of a monarchial bishop as successor of Peter in Rome as having been always understood as such, isn’t correct…

And to press it again Gary, I would really appreciate knowing if you hold material sufficiency or partim partim.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary,

I’m aware of the comments made by Irenaeus on the succession… But I don’t see it quite the way you do.

Course I don’t see 1-AD as 2012. But I do see the resounding issue we have. To bad we arn’t talking in person. I would quickly weave in and out of few other areas of Daniel and Revelation.

Same Chapter.

Such presbyters does the Church nourish, of whom also the prophet says: “I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy bishops in righteousness.” Of whom also did the Lord declare, “Who then shall be a faithful steward (actor), good and wise, whom the Lord sets over His household, to give them their meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing.” Paul then, teaching us where one may find such, says, “God hath placed in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers.” Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behoves us to learn the truth, [namely, ] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.

To bring about the Supernatural we need complete Communion, and at the moment in the Apostolic Churchs it would go a long way to slow this down. Alone they are under attack as we see in Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria. Course I understand all the dynamics of why, however, perhaps they don’t see the unversal urgency as I see it. The great fallen away and the rule of Anti Christ out of the old Roman Empire in particular Iran/Iraq which again is Daniel/Revelation seems pretty realistic to me at the moment.

Myself I am easy to get along with, these issue’s which divide can’t=Good. If it dosn’t equal=Good it must be resolved. But I see the church Biblically and in time. Getting a bit shakey in the West now. I believe its time to correctly put this together. I take no pleasure in realizing I won’t be here in all probability of my finate-minute. Someone here is gonna feel some pain though, someones gonna suffer. I believe Billy Graham had it right, if God allows this to continue in the USA he will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. 2012 is a wake up call in Christianity in the USA. We all see it.

Peace

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

No, Brandon. I accept what is Truth because that has been revealed.

And how do you know that what you have is really revelation? How do you know it is true? Do you not use your brain? You just believe, with a blind faith?

If so, this is reason as well. It is junk reasoning, but it is reasoning.

Truth trumps everything.

Absolutely! But we discover truth through our senses and reason. There is no other way. We can’t listen to a Pope or read a Book of the Bible or Koran, or sit at the feet of a guru or Lama, without using our senses. We cannot even interpret what is said without using our reasons.

He was not so much concerned with truth, but rather with what appeared reasonable. It seemed reasonable to him to believe that he was dressed in great finery. When, in truth, he was parading around buck naked.

Actually he seems to me to be doing exactly what you suggest. It was revealed to him that his clothes were invisible but really existed. He accepted the revelation without question, and he was wrong. He used your junk reason and accepted this revelation.

This is not unlike Catholic belief in real presence? The clothing exists, but is invisible?

I always found this story to be quite anti-Catholic, actually. Maybe the Catholics are right, and the naked emperor has clothes after all. My Naked Lord certainly looked the fool to the world, but I believe his wisdom far exceeded the world’s good sense.

As someone pointed out–how reasonable is it to believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

How reasonable is it to give our cloak to someone who has none?

How reasonable is it to believe that God is a Trinity?

It all seems strange, but I think that this is supremely reasonable, because the resurrection, generosity, and the Nature of the Divine are all part of God’s Essence, which is in a certain sense Reason itself.

These things are very reasonable, even if I cannot see exactly how. And even if my understanding of the details (no ascension, Jesus adopted into the Trinity?) is different from yours. Only one can be right, and I think we’ll find out eventually.

Here’s another list:

• How reasonable is it to believe in 10+ dimensions?
• That time is relative?
• That particles don’t have a specific position and momentum at any instant?
• That life arose from non-life billions of years ago?
• That monkeys and yeast are our evolutionary relatives?
• That black holes exist?

 

[CopticChristian]

And how do you know that what you have is really revelation? How do you know it is true? Do you not use your brain? You just believe, with a blind faith?

If so, this is reason as well. It is junk reasoning, but it is reasoning.

Absolutely! But we discover truth through our senses and reason. There is no other way. We can’t listen to a Pope or read a Book of the Bible or Koran, or sit at the feet of a guru or Lama, without using our senses. We cannot even interpret what is said without using our reasons.

Actually he seems to me to be doing exactly what you suggest. It was revealed to him that his clothes were invisible but really existed. He accepted the revelation without question, and he was wrong. He used your junk reason and accepted this revelation.

This is not unlike Catholic belief in real presence? The clothing exists, but is invisible?

I always found this story to be quite anti-Catholic, actually. Maybe the Catholics are right, and the naked emperor has clothes after all. My Naked Lord certainly looked the fool to the world, but I believe his wisdom far exceeded the world’s good sense.

It all seems strange, but I think that this is supremely reasonable, because the resurrection, generosity, and the Nature of the Divine are all part of God’s Essence, which is in a certain sense Reason itself.

These things are very reasonable, even if I cannot see exactly how. And even if my understanding of the details (no ascension, Jesus adopted into the Trinity?) is different from yours. Only one can be right, and I think we’ll find out eventually.

Here’s another list:

**

• How reasonable is it to believe in 10+ dimensions?
• That time is relative?
• That particles don’t have a specific position and momentum at any instant?
• That life arose from non-life billions of years ago?
• That monkeys and yeast are our evolutionary relatives?
• That black holes exist?

**

Brandon,

You may believe as you wish. I see the list and it causes me to wonder. You see, as I see it, everyone on this side of the Christianity fence has a belief that there is life after death. This list you provide offers no solution to that riddle.

While there is no certainty, there is comfort, that perhaps my belief and the belief of others allows for life after death. If you are satisfied with life as it is and see no reason to consider this proposition then meditate on black holes.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea,

The letter does not bear his name… earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html - the text is available here.

Who wrote it; “The Church of God which sojourns at Rome” according to the text itself, not a monarchial bishop. The reason it is identified as being from Clement is due to his role in the eldership of the roman church which the link I posted earlier describes; he is a communications man, who takes communications and forwards it to the council of elders who run the church. (1). Monarchial episcopacy simply isn’t in Rome at this early date.

Kind regards

Lincs.

(1) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

Sorry,but you are incorrect about the author of the letter. Your link is not correct or your sources. The letter is generally referred to as the First Letter to the Corinthians. More imporant,this is the SOLE EXTANT authentic writing of Clement. The original Greek is preserved in its entirety in the same codex in which Bryennios discovered the Didache.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi again Nicea,

Sorry,but you are incorrect about the author of the letter. Your link is not correct or your sources. The letter is generally referred to as the First Letter to the Corinthians. More imporant,this is the SOLE EXTANT authentic writing of Clement. The original Greek is preserved in its entirety in the same codex in which Bryennios discovered the Didache.

I’m not debating with you that clement is the one who probably wrote the letter, I’m just saying that this clement is not a monarchial bishop in Rome, but is one of many elders, whose had a significant role in the communication of the roman church.

Lincs,

 

[Nicea325]

Hi again Nicea,

I’m not debating with you that clement is the one who probably wrote the letter, I’m just saying that this clement is not a monarchial bishop in Rome, but is one of many elders, whose had a significant role in the communication of the roman church.

Lincs,

In all fairness, I understand your position. Is it plausible? Indeed.Nevertheless, the letter does not affirm church government or structure may have been changing radically and quickly due to era the letter was written. One must take the era consideration when it was written . The first 50-60 years of the church is not overloaded with lots of writings as in later years. But the limited information we possess say a lot. And why? Because the church was basically in hiding and Christians needed to be very “stealth” and “secretive” of their every moves and correspondence. Remember it was a crime not to worship the Roman emperor and Christians were well known to not worship the emperor.The church was very young and growing. Nonetheless, you must understand that the letter has been dated as early as 80 AD, 50 years after Jesus’ death and less than 20 years after Peter’s and Paul’s death.

Do I believe there were other elders at Rome? Absolutely! Do I believe Clement was the head? Absolutely! Later church fathers affirm him as successor to Peter which says a lot of Clement’s status. Are we to believe the church fathers who wrote the list of successors merely fabricated it up? If Clement were not the head bishop,then why bother to mention him as a successor of Peter? Why not start the list of successors AFTER his name? Unfortunately the position you present is not concrete enough to state there was not a monarchial bishop in Rome.