Beliefs of the Early Church

[theMutant]

RBushlow:

Actually, the council of Hippo was the first. Trent just reiterated it for clarity because of heresies being propagated at that time.

Very true. However, the Council of Hippo was not an ecumenical council. Its teachings were confirmed by subsequent ecumenical councils. The Council of Trent ws the first ecumenical council that explicitly -and infallibly- listed the entire canon of Scripture (Old and New Testaments) . Just pointing it out for clarity.

 

[MarkInOregon]

ahimsaman72:

We simply pray God’s protection over them and that He will guide them in their journey.

I don’t think this is all Paul did is it? When I read the NT I see Paul establishing churches. Churches that he then writes to and follows up with–in order to make sure that their teaching and practice is in accord with the apostles. I think a carefull reading of the NT shows that Paul was very concerned that: 1. his teaching was in accord with the apostles and 2. that that churches he started held fast to the teachings they were given by those duly ordained and sent to them. Paul is very concerned with unity of teaching in these early churches. He did not simply wind them up and set them on their own path.

It is clear that Paul went on at least 3 missionary journeys in his Christian life. They were simply that - missionary journeys.

I’m not sure “simply” is the right word. Paul was establishing churches and following up.

His task (along with the other apostles) was to teach others the Christian faith and baptize (MT. 28). The question becomes then, What does it take to teach the Christian faith? I would say not that much given what Paul had referred to throughout his epistles as the gospel. The gospel was simple. It wasn’t complicated. As I have mentioned before elsewhere, I use I Cor. 15 as a great summary of the Christian faith and expected beliefs of the Christian. It works the way Baptists do it. We share the gospel message. We give the new believer a Bible, encourage them to regularly attend Bible study and church services in order to grow their faith that began with accepting the gospel message Paul so frequently spoke of. Of course, there are messages from the pastors and sunday school teachers which helps us grow our faith and knowledge of God’s will.

Who monitors the messages from the Sunday school teachers and pastors? How does one know it is in accord with what the apostles taught? I ask this–because it seems to me that Paul was very concerned about this in his letters and epistles–and if you are going to tell me the Holy Spirit–then I would like to know why everyone isn’t on the same page? I find this confusing. Wouldn’t Christ have left us a way to know the truth for sure? Paul was concerned enough about it to go and meet with Peter and the other apostles–so that they (the apostles) could settle the matter of cirrcumcision and the gentiles. This seems to strongly imply that the apostles had some teaching authority and that even Paul respected it. I see a passing of authority by the laying on of hands.

I know you don’t put any stock in extra Biblical writings–but those writing also seem to show this unity to the teachings of the apostles was of great importance in the early church.

Christ did establish His Church did he not? How do we know his Church? It seems he would have left us a way to know?

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

 

[RBushlow]

theMutant:

Very true. However, the Council of Hippo was not an ecumenical council. Its teachings were confirmed by subsequent ecumenical councils. The Council of Trent ws the first ecumenical council that explicitly -and infallibly- listed the entire canon of Scripture (Old and New Testaments) . Just pointing it out for clarity.

You are absolutely correct. What you say is true. I was just pointing out the fact of Hippo to refute the false notion that the duterocanonical books were added at Trent. The Truth is that Trent was only necessary to refute those who, in the 1500’s, tossed out books which had been accepted by the Church for over 11 centuries.
Thank you for the clarification.

Christ be with you.

 

[MarkInOregon]

ahimsaman72:

The early Scriptural churches were not established that way. Each church was responsible for its own “upkeep”. That’s why local church government was instituted having pastors, deacons and elders.

Established in what way and you do, of course, realize that each Catholic parish today is still responsible for its own upkeep don’t you?

The peace of Christ be with you,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

ahimsaman72:

The Scriptures do not need an external decree or seal of authenticity from any person or organization.

Then why did Christ establish His Church? What is its purpose?

It is up to us (and those who went before us) to observe, study and come to conclusions based on the evidence presented us.

Does this really seem like what Christ would have given us? Isn’t it this kind of thought and desire that got Adam and Eve into trouble? Do you really believe Christ left us to flounder on our own–where we would obviously stumble (the sheer number number of conflicting “Christian” teachings proves this) into error?

No, he promised to protect His Church, not your church, not my church, not a church–but His Church. Really that’s why the Catholic Church is still here today functioning with the same passing on of the same apostolic offices we see in Scripture, with the same organizational structure we see in Scripture and settling disputes the same way we see in Scripture. We still hold coucils when they are needed to settle a question or dispute and the results are binding on the whole Church as we see they are in Scripture and pastoral letters are still sent out to the various Churches, when needed, exhorting them to hold fast to the truth they have been given.

Do you really think a church run by men would still be around 2000 years later? Do you think a church run by men would hold fast to its teachings for 2000 years? It is only through Christs promised protection and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Church perseveres and holds fast to the truths given to it by Christ and his apostles and is still here today. Men could not do this. As one of our popes said to Napolean–if the clergy haven’t destroyed the Church neither can you.

You see the Church is not really what you seem to think it is–it is a gift to us from God–as established by Christ–to protect all that he gave us and to guide as to all truth as Scripture says. Today many do not like this truth and they want to make up their own truth. The evidence is all around us. Many truths accepted by all Christians since the time of Christ are being called into question today by various protestant groups. Doctrine on the Trinity, the existance of Hell and even the divinity of Christ. A system that allows for that is not what Christ left us–he didn’t leave us to all be our own churches–he left us His Church.

I’m sorry to say but it is simply pride that keeps us from wanting to submit to an authority. We want to do things our way–but is our way Gods way? Obviously we can’t all be doing it Gods way–can we?

The peace of Christ be with you,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

ahimsaman72:

Well, we can at least agree on one point. You don’t accept my authority (which you shouldn’t) and I don’t accept yours or your church.

The problem is that it is not our church it is His Church.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

 

[ahimsaman72]

MarkInOregon:

Established in what way and you do, of course, realize that each Catholic parish today is still responsible for its own upkeep don’t you?

The peace of Christ be with you,
Mark

The early churches were established by apostles. Specifically, in Paul’s case, wherever he went he preached the gospel and built up the local congregations. As you can see by Paul’s epistles, he gave instructions to the churches, established guidelines for behavior and he mentions specific offices such as bishops and deacons - giving structure to those individual churches.

I realize that each parish is responsible for itself, but obviously the priests answer to the bishop and the bishop answers to the pope. Isn’t that true?

 

[ahimsaman72]

MarkInOregon:

The problem is that it is not our church it is His Church.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

Yes, all believers in Christ belong to Him, which is His church, His bride. The church is the body of Christ, with Christ Himself being the Head. The church is universal in scope, not particular to one denomination or group of people - which I would call “elitism”.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Les Richardson:

You are going in circles. If they considered the letters of St. Paul valid without question it was precisely because of his authority as an apostle. On the other hand, if you are attributing to them a special perception to believe St. Paul’s writings were the truth because of what he said to them, ie. his doctrine, then you have two problems.

By what authority (authentication of truth) apart from St. Paul did they assess the truth of his doctrine, when he was the one most central to introducing them to the risen Christ? And, as a matter of record, his letters were sent in most cases to interdict and correct an error or heresy that had sprung up in doctrine or practice.

How could anything be obvious to these new Christians? They did not have the benefit of 1500 yrs of church development of doctrine to rely on as you do (and don’t even realize it.) If you believe, as most protestants today believe, that the Holy Spirit will guide the believer in understanding and interpreting the Scripture and indeed was guiding the recipients of St. Paul’s letters to determine their validity, how is it that he needed to send them in the first place for their correction? And of course, how is it there are so many guided by the Holy Spirit saying so many and conflicting things to this day?

The issue of authority is unavoidable, particularly when you get a better understanding of the historical context into which these early churches were established. The world around was not a cultural or religious vacuum, no more than it is today.

Les,

Let’s stick to the point here without talking about circles. Fact is that there is one great reference to what I am referring to when I speak of Christians accepting what Paul taught. Remember the passage about the Bereans? They listened to what Paul said about Christ and referenced the Scriptures they had. It’s there in black and white - Acts 17:10,11

“10. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, **and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” **(emphasis mine).

By what authority, you ask? By the God-breathed authority of Scripture along with the gospel that Paul preached. They were able to discern what was being said to them and were able to verify its truth.

Paul’s letters were sent to help the brethren throughout the territories. He spoke of praying for them and visiting them. He spoke of guidelines for behavior. He set up leadership positions in the congregations he built or that he built up. His role was not one simply of correcting heresy and error.

Let me give you a verse that clears the air about the apostles and how they viewed themselves. Look at I Peter with me:

1 Peter 5

1. The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

I’m afraid the Roman Catholic Church holds Peter to a higher esteem than he ever claimed for himself.

 

[ahimsaman72]

MarkInOregon:

Who monitors the messages from the Sunday school teachers and pastors? How does one know it is in accord with what the apostles taught?

That would be the congregation using the Holy Bible to verify that what they are saying is true.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

This isn’t what we see in Acts 15 though. We don’t see local independent churches with local authority within themselves. In fact we see just the opposite.

When the debate about whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcized to be saved began causing “no little dessension and debate (vs 2)” what happens? The church at Antioch votes on what they should believe on the matter? No. The circumcision crowd breaks away from the no-circumsion crowd and starts their own church? No. “It was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question (vs 2)”. If the church at Antioch was a local independent church with local authority within themselves they’d have settled the matter among themselves. But they didn’t. They took the matter to Jerusalem where the church leadership was (apostles and presbyters), the people who had the authority to render a binding decision. They did not keep it local nor claim their independence.

When a decision was rendered it was binding, not only on those in Antioch but Syria and Cilicia as well (vs 23). The decision was binding not only on those where the problem arose but on all Christians of the day. The letter was addressed to churches that weren’t even involved in the issue. This is because the “local” churches weren’t independent with a local authority. They were all part of the one church established by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18) all under the authority of the apostles and presbyters who were, at that time, in Jerusalem.

Did the apostles and presbyters send the letter knowing the local independent church of Antioch could simply pray to the holy Spirit and interpret it for themselves? No. The wise council knew that the written word could be misinterpreted so they sent along Judas and Silas who would “convey this same message by word of mouth (vs 27)”. They knew that an authoritative interpreter was necessary so the message would not be misunderstood.

When the letter arrived along with Judas and Silas did the local independent church of Antioch raise a stink about the interference of Jerusalem in their local affair? No. Did they complain that they were a local independent church with a local independent authority and Jerusalem couldn’t tell them what to do? No. Did they tell Judas and Silas that they didn’t need anyone to tell them what the letter meant because they had the holy Spirit to tell them? No. They were delighted (vs 31) with the message from Jerusalem and they sent greetings of peace to those who had rendered this binding decision upon them (vs 33). This local church did not act independently but rather sought the authoritative decision of the church leadership and it brought delight and peace where there was once “dissention and debate”.

Help me to understand where you find that scripture describes the early churches as local independent churches with local authority within themselves?

In Christ,
Nancy

Because Scripture describes local leadership - elders and bishops, not popes.

The churches were not church buildings or organizations as can be seen the passage which describes the church as meeting in houses. Romans 16: 5. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

The council at Jerusalem did not proclaim the many ordinances and traditions that the Roman Church has proclaimed. The council gave general guidelines. What appears in the New Testament is foreign to what you see as the Roman Church today.

 

[MarkInOregon]

ahimsaman72:

I realize that each parish is responsible for itself, but obviously the priests answer to the bishop and the bishop answers to the pope. Isn’t that true?

Yes I would say that is true–they serve serve where they are told to serve, and if they fail to preach the truth they can be reprimanded–though I think you can see here in America–this is not always done or those who fail to submit are not always removed from their position of authority. The Church is not the iron fisted institution of authority you might picture it to be.
I
You left out deacons answer to the priests.

So you don’t see this as how the early Church functioned in Scripture? Timothy didn’t answer to Paul? It seems clear to me that it functioned in just that way.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

ahimsaman72:

That would be the congregation using the Holy Bible to verify that what they are saying is true.

If this is true, and if this is what Christ really intended to leave us–why do we have so many conflicting beliefs amoung Christians?
Christ promised to guide us to all truth. How is he keeping this promise if all congregations pick up the same Holy Bible and come to different truths–thats not what he promised and how is that guiding us to all truth? I am currious because I can’t understand this line of reasoning–it seems so clearly contrary to Scripture and to the practice of the early Church we see in the NT.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

 

[mayra_hart]

how do we determine which is the church founded by christ? the church founded by christ must go back in history to the times of christ; its doctrines must be the same as those of the apostolic church; and its leaders must be able to trace their authority back to the apostles. thus, history,apostolic doctrines, and apostolic authority are the sure guidelines for determining which church jesus founded. only the catholic church meets these requirements. history. any objective history book will show that only the catholic church has existed since ttimes of christ. no protestant denomination found today existed before ad 1517. apostolic doctrines. the early church fathers are our indispensable link to apostolic christianity. their writting tell us what the first christians believed. a careful study of the early church fathers shows they all taught distinctively catholic doctrines. apostolic authority the bible and the sacred tradition are very clear that christ left a church that would governed by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters, and deacons with the succesor of st peter as the head. only the catholic church has such governing hierarchy that can be trace its authority— in an unbroken succession— back to the apostolic authority established by christ himself.

 

[JRJ26]

Let’s look at the state of Christianity today. Basically, we have hundreds, if not thousands of churches(not local churches, denominations) in existence. All claim to be Christian. Then we have the various “sola scriptura” churches and branches of Protestantism. The interesting thing is that all claim to believe in the Bible alone, and that you can personally interpret the Bible for yourself with the power of the Holy Spirit. However, these churches can’t even agree on what the Bible says!!! One church/individual says that the Bible says that God is one, not a trinity, while the other says that God is a Trinity. One person says that the Bible says that Jesus is God, while the other says that Jesus isn’t God! Yet they all claim to believe that the Bible told them this, by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is where the confusion occurs, and clearly why the Bible alone is not the sole authority or the sole place from where doctrine is derived. Clearly the early Church didn’t rely on the Bible alone, and the Bible itself never says that it is the sole authority. Rather, it tells us that the CHURCH is the “pillar and ground of Truth”(1 Timothy 3:15)

Out of all churches in existence today, the Catholic Church(and to an extent, the Orthodox Church) is the oldest, most ancient Church, that can historically trace its beliefs and authority back to the Apostles.

 

[ahimsaman72]

MarkInOregon:

If this is true, and if this is what Christ really intended to leave us–why do we have so many conflicting beliefs amoung Christians?
Christ promised to guide us to all truth. How is he keeping this promise if all congregations pick up the same Holy Bible and come to different truths–thats not what he promised and how is that guiding us to all truth? I am currious because I can’t understand this line of reasoning–it seems so clearly contrary to Scripture and to the practice of the early Church we see in the NT.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

Peace Mark,

Mark, as to your first question - what conflicting doctrines are you concerned with here? By far, the majority of protestant Christians agree on essential doctrines of the faith as summed up in the Apostles Creed (which by the way is the earliest on record). So much is said about a division in protestantism but little is acknowledged in the unifying doctrines that we all hold.

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

Fine, then, let’s skip the topic of sola Scriptura even though Protestants (and apparently you) seem to be arguing that it was believed by the Early Church

The Church existed and was teaching authoritatively before the Bible was completed. God established the Church and vested it with His own authority. (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17; 28:18-20; Luke 10:16; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:42; Ephesians 3:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:14-16)

Okay, Mutant…I’m back.

Now, I just looked over this first paragraph or so yesterday and knew we were in for trouble. I deleted all the rest, because it just becomes too much to look at.

One by one I want to comment on each of the first several verses you posted. It’s interesting that your first two sentences have little to do with the verses quoted after. Here’s what I mean:

Mt. 16: 18-19 and 18:17

Obviously these are the passages used most often to equate the foundation of the church being the apostle Peter himself. The fact is the Christ is the foundation rock and Peter as a professing believer is what the church is built upon. Peter is the church. Paul is the church. Apollos is the church. I am the church. You are the church. You get my point.

Moving on to Mt. 28: 18-20 (NIV)

Jesus came to the the disciples and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. (Christ is the foundation. He is the ultimate authority). "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations" (did He say make rules and laws or make disciples?). "…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (to obey what Christ had already told them and taught them. What did He teach them? You will find that in the four gospels.)

What were the apostles teaching authoritatively? Whatever their whim was? Or, maybe what they were taught by Christ? They were teaching others what they had been taught by Christ before His death and resurrection. They weren’t teaching prayers to Mary. They weren’t teaching obedience to the pope. They weren’t teaching only one part of communion offered to the laity.

Now, moving on to Luke 10:16…

What puzzles me is why this one is used here. Here Jesus sends out the 72 disciples (not the 12) into every town and place where he is about to travel to. Why did He send them out before Him? To prepare the way. To prepare their hearts to receive Him when He came. To preach the gospel. To preach the gospel. To preach the gospel.

Now, moving on to John 14:16-17…

Here the passage speaks of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer and being recognized as the Spirit of truth. This actually helps prove the protestant position that the Holy Spirit is truth and indwells the believer and is authoritative for the believer. How else can you understand this passage?

I will follow up on a forthcoming post…

 

[walter.gonzalez]

Today at lunch I had a discussion with a “dispensationalist” evangelical Christian.

I argued that dispensationalist theology was first espoused by Darby of the plymouth bretheren in the late 1800’s.

He maintained that the Church Fathers were the first dispensationalists. When I answered that the Church Fathers never even mentioned the term dispensationalism, he acknowledged as much, but continued to argue that nevertheless they were dispensationalists.

Would someone comment on when this theology first originated? Is there any evidence that the Church Fathers believed this?

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

Fine, then, let’s skip the topic of sola Scriptura even though Protestants (and apparently you) seem to be arguing that it was believed by the Early Church

The Church existed and was teaching authoritatively before the Bible was completed. God established the Church and vested it with His own authority. (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17; 28:18-20; Luke 10:16; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:42; Ephesians 3:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:14-16)

Continued…

Acts 2:42 (KJV), " 42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers"

So, let’s put this in perspective…Christ has been killled, raised from the dead and resurrected. Christ has given the disciples a mandate (ref Mt. 28). So, the question is - what was the apostles’ doctrine? Glad you asked…the apostles doctrine was the gospel message - Christ was God incarnate, was killed, came back to life and ascended to heaven. He was the Son of God. What Christ had taught them when He was on earth was what they shared with others down the line. And of course the disciples had all things in common, met daily for fellowship and breaking of bread and prayed. No mystery here.

Now, moving on to Eph 3:4-5 (KJV)

“2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3. How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6. That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7. Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power”

So, the mystery of Christ was not revealed in ages past, but now was understood by the apostles and prophets. What is this mystery? vs. 6 tells us that the mystery is that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise. So, what does this have to do with the two topical sentences?

Now, moving on to I Thess. 4:1-2

“1. Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
2. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus”

Look at the verbs used here by Paul, “beseech, exhort, ought to”. Look at the object, “brethren”. So, Paul and others encouraging and admonishing their fellow brothers in the faith to conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the Christian name. Commandments were given to the brethren by the Lord, through the apostles. What were those commandments? Were they the gospel? Were they rituals or requirements for foot-washing? Not likely. They were given guidelines for conduct. Most likely the same kind of guidelines given by the council at the church at Jerusalem led by James.

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

Fine, then, let’s skip the topic of sola Scriptura even though Protestants (and apparently you) seem to be arguing that it was believed by the Early Church

The Church existed and was teaching authoritatively before the Bible was completed. God established the Church and vested it with His own authority. (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17; 28:18-20; Luke 10:16; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:42; Ephesians 3:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:14-16)

Continued…

Moving on to 2 Thess. 2:15 and let’s include verse 14, shall we?

“14. Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Well, first the gospel is mentioned here. And note the first word in verse 15 - “therefore”. What does therefore stand for? Whatever precedes it. So, God called the Thessalonians to Him by the gospel of the apostles - why? so the Lord could get the glory. Therefore, the brothers (as Paul calls them, not subjects) are told to hold on to what they had been given whether it was by their spoken word or epistle. Okay, so would you say this spoken word and epistles would contradict or match each other? I would say that these traditions (NIV calls them teachings) are the gospel message (as other verses make clear). If you notice the preceding verses going back before verse 14, you see the reason Paul is saying these things. It’s because Paul spoke of deception and the man of sin (I’m surprised you even want to go to this passage). He’s telling them to remain faithful to what he preached and taught - which was the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now, moving on to I Tim. 3:14-16 (KJV)

1. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
3. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Okay, this is pretty self-explanatory. Paul has just given instructions for church leadership. He is writing, but hoping to go to them soon to instruct them in person. He speaks of behavior and refers to the house of God as the church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of the truth.

If you reference John 14:16,17 that you quoted above and I already spoke of you will see that the Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter that Christ sent. And where does this Holy Spirit dwell? the previous verse, verse 17 clearly says “for he lives in you and will be in you”. The Holy Spirit indwells every believer as can be stated in other verses also. Wherever the Holy Spirit dwells, there is the house of God, which is the church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Now, given that this is my third post now responding to only one paragraph of the first of your many, many continued posts, this may take quite some time to deal with. Are you sure you want to keep this going, Mutant?

Because for every Scripture and principle thrown out, we have to look at that Scripture one by one and see what is being said. Often, once we do that, we will see the truth we are looking for.