Bypassing History

[Janet_S]

Hello Justin.

Here is a response from someone who was led to leave the Catholic Church…

Yes. Very much so.

One cannot read the NT, which predates the writings of those in the early church, without seeing that error had already begun taking root and multiplying in the Apostolic era churches.

These are churches planted by the Apostles themselves with leaders appointed by the same.

From Acts forward, we see the errors creeping in and attempted correction after attempted correction being given. Almost all the Epistles set out to combat serious errors that have already found a home in Apostolic era assemblies.

This is very significant.

If Apostolic era churches can so easily err…even though planted by the Apostles themselves, with leaders appointed by the Apostles themselves, and with the oversight of the Apostles themselves…then how much more so for those churches without all that?

From the Gospel accounts on, the Holy Spirit is abundantly clear that error will find its root and source within the church, among Christians themselves, and among Christian elders. Looking for the standard of pure doctrine in those same churches is a recipe for disaster, IMO.

The surest source of correct doctrine is God’s infallible and inerrant Scriptures. The early fathers recognized this early on as well.

Truth is not consistently found in men, but in God alone.

…

Jeremy already commented on this, and he made a lot of good points. I just wanted to add a few comments:

–The ECF’s did appeal to the authority of Scripture. Catholics still appeal to the authority of Scripture. But the complex of beliefs called “sola Scriptura” which is embraced by Protestantism today was never believed and practiced by the early Church. This complex of beliefs is 1) Only those things found within the pages of Scripture are binding on the conscience of the Christian, 2) The Bible is materially sufficient (contains all things necessary for a Christian to believe), 3) The Bible is formally sufficient (the Bible clearly explains itself and needs no infallible interpretor), 4) The Church has authority, but it is does not have infallible authority, and therefore, cannot bind the conscience of the Christian, 5) Individual Christians have an absolute right to private interpretation when they read Scripture since the Bible alone can bind the Christian conscience.

–The ECF’s recognized the divine authority of the Church as well as the divine authority of Scripture.

–Throughout the history of the Church, heretics have appealed to Scripture too. This is from St Vincent of Lerins (AD 434): “Heres, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture ? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,–through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Tesment or the Old.”

–I agree with Atemi “From Acts forward, we see the errors creeping in and attempted correction after attempted correction being given. Almost all the Epistles set out to combat serious errors that have already found a home in Apostolic era assemblies.”

–The Epistles themselves are evidence that the Church had authority to correct heretics, otherwise these letters wouldn’t exist. Catholics believe that this authoritative Church (the one we see in Acts 15) still exists today.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll finish your sentence by saying, “they, like God, gave us a final court of appeal for resolving disputes about the meaning of the document.” Just like the United States has an authoritative interpreter of the Constitution: the Supreme Court; the kingdom of heaven has an authoritative interpreter of the Bible: the Church.

Jeremy

The overriding difference being, of course, that the Supreme Court is not infallible whereas the Catholic Church is on matters of faith and morals.

 

[AlmostCatholic]

Part Two - Lengthy but Worth It

How could the world know with certainty that Jesus was sent, if they cannot see an “invisible” church? The church must be visible. Can the world look at the state of Christianity today and see one unified church? Do they say, “Yep, those Christians are certainly unified, that is plain to see. By looking at them, we can believe that Jesus was sent by God”? Not at all! The world cannot see an “invisible” unity of all true believers because what it sees instead is 25,000+ denominations bickering and fighting amongst themselves over doctrinal differences.

Jesus is saying that the unity of a single, visible church would be proof that He really was sent into the world by the Father. The unity of the church is supposed to be a witness to this fact. In order for the world to know the truth, it must be able to see a visible, unified church.

I have to respectfully disagree on a few points:

1. The Church does not need to be visible.
   -When Jesus spoke about the coming Kingdom, everyone thought he meant a visible earthly one. This is exactly what it wasn’t. It wasn’t to raise swords to Rome and establish Israel as a nation, but the jews at that time had a hard time not believing that. (The tradition at the time was looking for a reigning King of the line of David, not a suffering servant. This point may incidently seems to show the danger of tradition.)

• A visible church isn’t necessarilly a good church. I hate to bring up the issue of the inquisition and the crusades, but that adds to my point. Rather the spirit of Christ embodies some, maybe even many in the church as his body. Even in the church we know that there will be some to whom Christ says, depart from me for I did not know you., though they were a part of the visible professing church.

1. You are overstating the denominational bickering that exists in the Protestant church. There are conflicts in every organization, and there has been bickering in the catholic church. From what I have heard of history some of the groups that emphasize Free-will got into squabbles with those groups who emphasizes God’s soveriengty. (Forgive me for not citing a source.) This doesn’t prove that we are not the body, it proves that we are human, and I don’t see the catholic church as exempt from disagreements.

The Father desires that the Church should be of one mind regarding the faith and doctrinal matters such as the “one baptism” just as He and the Son are one. The Father and the Son do not disagree on any issue. Does the Father prefer infant baptism while the Son does not? In the same way, we should have no divisions, no denominations, that separate us from one another. Paul’s appeal is not about some idealistic, invisible unity but a real, visible, tangible unity.

There is no way that we can all agree with each other in every issue. Do all catholics believe in the Big Bang? Do all believe that burying a stature in your front yard will make your house sell? This is unrealistic. When Protestants speak about agreement in the essentials, we don’t need a list in the Bible. We only need what is clear in the Bible. I would say that that is the apostles creed for example. Beyond this, how much does it matter?

Further, what happens when there is a disagreement that requires a decision from the church as shown in the passage above. Let’s say that a wife becomes pregnant but does not want any more children; she wants to have an abortion. The husband goes to the Catholic Church which teaches that abortion is absolutely wrong. But the wife chooses a church that teaches that abortion is a matter of personal choice.

I take issue with this as a false analogy. There are no main stream protestant churches that espouse pro-choice. There are marginally ‘spiritual’ churches like this, but typically they do not call themselves Christian, more likey they may say Universalist. And again, there are groups within catholicism that teach contrarily to the Church. Dignity is one example I am aware of.

How can this matter be resolved since the “invisible” church – which is bigger than any one denomination – does not have doctrinal unity?

Again, the heart of the majority of Protestant churches is unified and what is disagreed on is considered an in house debate. These debates do not include abortion, Homosexual marriage, and so on…

Thank you for you responses.
-Justin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AlmostCatholic:

The Church does not need to be visible. When Jesus spoke about the coming Kingdom, everyone thought he meant a visible earthly one.

As in the Kingdom of Heaven is among us?

Everyone? That’s a lot of people to speak for.

AlmostCatholic:

This is exactly what it wasn’t.

Are you sure?

AlmostCatholic:

It wasn’t to raise swords to Rome and establish Israel as a nation, but the jews at that time had a hard time not believing that.

Yet Rome fell. In any case it does not have to look like a successful Jewish rebellion to be visible. Your example is a false analogy.

AlmostCatholic:

The tradition at the time was looking for a reigning King of the line of David, not a suffering servant.

Some were looking for a reigning King of the line of David. Some were looking for a suffering servant.

AlmostCatholic:

This point may incidently seems to show the danger of tradition.

How does it show the danger of tradition?

AlmostCatholic:

A visible church isn’t necessarilly a good church. I hate to bring up the issue of the inquisition and the crusades, but that adds to my point.

Go ahead. Bring them up. Maybe your notions about them could also use a nip and tuck.

AlmostCatholic:

Rather the spirit of Christ embodies some, maybe even many in the church as his body. Even in the church we know that there will be some to whom Christ says, depart from me for I did not know you., though they were a part of the visible professing church.

This is not making sense to me. We live in the world, albeit a fallen world. The Church was given to the world – all the world – for the Christian mission. To believe in an invisible Church is to believe in gnosticism which is a heresy.

AlmostCatholic:

You are overstating the denominational bickering that exists in the Protestant church. There are conflicts in every organization, and there has been bickering in the catholic church.

The difference is that Protestant bickering has no final arbiter. And Catholic bickering has a final arbiter.

AlmostCatholic:

From what I have heard of history some of the groups that emphasize Free-will got into squabbles with those groups who emphasizes God’s soveriengty. (Forgive me for not citing a source.)

Please cite a source.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AlmostCatholic:

Again, the heart of the majority of Protestant churches is unified and what is disagreed on is considered an in house debate.

Ah! an in house debate! And so not subject to external examination? Let me divulge a little instinct which I have. It is this: your explanations are beginning to sound a little on the gnostic side of things.

Also the statement “the heart of the majority of Protestant churches is unified” is a mighty broad generalism. Would you be kind enough to quantify please?

AlmostCatholic:

These debates do not include abortion, Homosexual marriage, and so on…

So I take it that the Anglican church is no longer Protestant?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I’ve noticed that apologists for Protestantism have not addressed the self-contradictory position on which I have shed light.

For whom is Scripture ‘sufficient’?

More specifically is it ‘sufficient’ for the illiterate? The poor? the non-leisure class? The pre-Bible laity? Those who are not permitted into the inner circles of gnosticism?

 

[Atemi]

Scripture is infallible, inerrant? Who exactly is your authority for this statement?

If you do not accept God’s Word’s as perfect and infallible, that is an issue you need to seriously address.

Moreover, if the surest source of correct doctrine is… Scriptures – then the illiterate, the poor, the non-gnostic, the pre-Bible laity were and still are plum out of luck.

It seems you do not understand the doctrine of SS at all.

If the surest source of correct doctrine is… Scriptures – then where is the Book of Jesus? Where is the Book that Jesus wrote? Hidden in the World Library of Gnosticism perhaps?

The books Jesus wrote are all the Scriptures.

He is the Author.

If you also do not believe that, you will have to resolve that issue for yourself.

Again, Sola Scriptura does not address the problem of evangelizing the illiterate, the poor, the non-gnostic, the pre-Bible laity.

Again, it seems you do not understand the doctrine of SS at all.

These are very weak and poor criticisms of the doctrine.

For if Sola Scriptura were a valid position, we would not see in Protestant crusades the singing of hymns (except from the pages of Scripture), the lifting up of arms (except maybe to turn the pages of Scripture), prayers (except those specified in the pages of Scripture), and so on.

And we would not see Protestant crusades in countries afflicted by grinding poverty and illiteracy.

Yes. You do not understand the doctrine at all.

 

[Atemi]

I’ve noticed that apologists for Protestantism have not addressed the self-contradictory position on which I have shed light.

For whom is Scripture ‘sufficient’?

More specifically is it ‘sufficient’ for the illiterate?

Yes.

The poor?

Yes.

the non-leisure class?

Yes.

The pre-Bible laity?

Yes.

Those who are not permitted into the inner circles of gnosticism?

Yes.

Scripture is sufficient for all.

Scripture is for all.

Scripture was written for all.

 

[AlmostCatholic]

Part Three

How can this matter be resolved since the “invisible” church – which is bigger than any one denomination – does not have doctrinal unity? How can it be decided what is and is not true concerning the Christian faith? How decides what is and is not good doctrine? What is and is not moral? Who decides what is right and wrong? Who speaks for the church in these matters? Or what happens when everyone

 

[AlmostCatholic]

So I take it that the Anglican church is no longer Protestant?

That’s a fair point. I have no desire to be connected to what is happening in some of those churches. In that case we need to reform these reformed churches. The only way to do that is to return to tradition. (And maybe back to Rome.)

I would also like to say regarding an earlier point I made, I don’t think abortion is a good example, but divorce is. I think it is an absloute shame how lazy the protestant church has been on this issue. I don’t think England became protestant for good reasons. Henry needs another divorce? Sheesh. I’ll side with Thomas Moore on that one. This is a side issue, and i don’t want to steer the debate too far of track…

 

[AlmostCatholic]

Some were looking for a reigning King of the line of David. Some were looking for a suffering servant.

There is very little indication that anyone was looking for a suffering servant. Even the disciples didn’t understand that. Peter didn’t and was called Satan for it.

How does it show the danger of tradition?

Because the jewish tradition at the time emphasized that the messiah would come and liberate the Jews from there oppressors. Even though the verses of the suffering servant (esp. Isaiah 53) were there, they weren’t traditionally thought of regarding the messiah. The disciples didn’t get it either.
John12:16
“His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about Him and that they had done these things to Him.”

The implication is that the teachers were not teaching accurately in what the messiah would be and it was a matter of remembering the scriptures later, that it made sense to the disciples.

This is not making sense to me. We live in the world, albeit a fallen world. The Church was given to the world – all the world – for the Christian mission. To believe in an invisible Church is to believe in gnosticism which is a heresy.

I don’t think this is that esoteric. What is the church? It is the body of believers, i.e. all who call on the name of the Lord. We are all his body, how are we united? In Christ, not by any visible bonds.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have to respectfully disagree on a few points:

1. The Church does not need to be visible.

Matthew 5:14
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.

• A visible church isn’t necessarilly a good church. I hate to bring up the issue of the inquisition and the crusades, but that adds to my point. Rather the spirit of Christ embodies some, maybe even many in the church as his body. Even in the church we know that there will be some to whom Christ says, depart from me for I did not know you., though they were a part of the visible professing church.

“The Spirit of Christ embodies some?”

How about:

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

1. You are overstating the denominational bickering that exists in the Protestant church. There are conflicts in every organization, and there has been bickering in the catholic church. From what I have heard of history some of the groups that emphasize Free-will got into squabbles with those groups who emphasizes God’s soveriengty. (Forgive me for not citing a source.) This doesn’t prove that we are not the body, it proves that we are human, and I don’t see the catholic church as exempt from disagreements.

We are all human, that much is certain. However, the bickering that exists weakens the witness of the Church to the World. Surely you have spoken with those who have refused to listen to the Gospel precisely because of the scandal that we create amongst ourselves?

There is no way that we can all agree with each other in every issue. Do all catholics believe in the Big Bang? Do all believe that burying a stature in your front yard will make your house sell? This is unrealistic.

Nor are these issues a matter of faith. The Church has no comment on the Big Bang other than to say that God must be credited with creation and that Adam and Eve were real people. Regarding the sale of real estate, let me just state that I am a RE/MAX agent, and I will refrain from commenting to avoid being uncharitable.

When Protestants speak about agreement in the essentials, we don’t need a list in the Bible. We only need what is clear in the Bible. I would say that that is the apostles creed for example. Beyond this, how much does it matter?

It’s a good thing you don’t need a list, because there is none.

But what is clear in the Bible? Is Baptism essential for salvation? Is it regenerative? Is the baptism of infants clear in the Bible? Some say yes some say no, and both claim to be “men of God” using the “Bible Alone” as their sole infallible rule of faith.

I take issue with this as a false analogy. There are no main stream protestant churches that espouse pro-choice. There are marginally ‘spiritual’ churches like this, but typically they do not call themselves Christian, more likey they may say Universalist. And again, there are groups within catholicism that teach contrarily to the Church. Dignity is one example I am aware of.

Mainstream? There are no rules here…she is free to choose any non-Catholic “church” of her choice. Different churches teach different doctrines…it is possible to shop around long enough until she finds one that teaches what her itching ears long to hear. And by the way, just Google “mainstream protestant denominations pro-choice”, and see what you find.

As for dissident Catholic groups, do they speak for the Church or in opposition to it?

You see, there is a big difference between a “Catholic” group that holds positions that are contrary to the Catholic faith and a “church” that actually teaches that same falsehood.

Again, the heart of the majority of Protestant churches is unified and what is disagreed on is considered an in house debate. These debates do not include abortion, Homosexual marriage, and so on…

I see…so the Lutheran who baptizes infants has no issues with the Baptists who don’t or vice-versa?

The Baptist who refuses to drink any alcohol whatsoever or to dance at a wedding has no issues with the Presbyterian who does?

The Anglican who believes in the Real Presence and takes communion every week has no problems with the Methodist who sees communion as pure symbol and receives only four times per year?

Just food for thought…:tiphat:

 

[AlmostCatholic]

Randy Carson;2066347]Matthew 5:14
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.

I’ll clarify;
The church needs to be present in the world certainly and impacting the world. But that does not indicate that it has to be a visible building.

How about:

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Yet those within the visible church are not necessarilly ‘saved’ and are not necessarilly part of the body. Just being in a visible church doesn’t make you a part of the invisible church.

We are all human, that much is certain. However, the bickering that exists weakens the witness of the Church to the World. Surely you have spoken with those who have refused to listen to the Gospel precisely because of the scandal that we create amongst ourselves?

I do agree with you. It is a shame that there is bickering. But I also think that people using that as an excuse is a poor excuse. Peopl can make many escuses for not believing in Christianity, but we cannot make those things different. Some may not want to look into christianity because of bad Popes. Or the conquistadors or whatnot. This doesn’t mean that we should try to say that they were actually good popes. using escuses like this reflects an unwillingness to look into the issues about the history, Philosophy or whatever apologetic tools we use. Again, I would refer to the essentials. If a person can get to ‘Mere Chrisitanity’, and past the sqaubles, then they can find Christ there, whether it is in the Protestant or Catholic church.

Mainstream? There are no rules here…she is free to choose any non-Catholic “church” of her choice. Different churches teach different doctrines…it is possible to shop around long enough until she finds one that teaches what her itching ears long to hear. And by the way, just Google “mainstream protestant denominations pro-choice”, and see what you find.

People can shop around and find a church that will tickle their fancy, or they can stop going altogether. But that is not an honest search, that is choosing the spririt of the Anti-christ over the spirit of Christ. One can do the same thing by going to a catholic church and ignoring everything that is taught. Some churches will not teach out of the Bible anymore. Those are not good representatives of Christ and no one from any of the main Bible based denominations are going to try to defend them. We cannot use the example of Churches that do not even look at the Bible to argue on Sola Scriptura.

You see, there is a big difference between a “Catholic” group that holds positions that are contrary to the Catholic faith and a “church” that actually teaches that same falsehood.

I concede this point.

I suppose, when I think about this, what I am trying to argue is that the church includes Catholic and Protestant (and Orthodox, not to exclude them.). Is it seperate? Yes. Is it united? Yes. We disagree on issues, but we are still one in Christ. This is an invisible bond that is deeper than saints or purgatory. this is wher men find salvation…:heaven:

I seem to have drifted from my first question…

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, you offer no evidence, no line of reasoning, no reference point other than your own opinion.

Much like many of your own posts.

 

[Atemi]

Part 1:

**First of all, Christ only has one church…one body…the Mystical Body of Christ. There is no other. **

What about the light of the world?

What about us?

The city on a hill that cannot be hidden? The household of God, a place that we must “behave” in (how does one “behave” in an invisible church?)

If you are not sure how to behave as a member of the Body of Christ, then you should not be asking me.

BTW, the Body of Christ is not invisible. People are in that Body, and the last I checked, people are visible.

The final court of appeal in disputes between members? (Matthew 18)?

Christ was talking about the synagogue in Matt 18: the local congregation.

He was speaking to Jews and they knew what He was talking about. He surely did not say to take their disputes to the Roman Catholic Church.

When one gets confused about the differing applications of “church,” this mistake comes easy.

If you refer to ALL the churches during the Apostolic era, then there was no “entire church”…one, singular, monolithic eccesiastical institution receiving instructions from a singular head.

How do you explain the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, then?

What is there to explain?

There was false teaching being imported into Antioch from Judea, and the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem gathered to fix it.

Simple.

They then sent a letter to that region to hopefully correct the situation.

There was no mess of writers pounding out copy after copy to send to all the congregations all over the world.

No. There were individual churches run by overseers and elders.

Under the oversight of the Apostles and evangelists appointed by them, like Timothy and Titus.

Yes. Agreed.

But all the Apostles were not in regular contact, comparing notes, with all the evangelists doing the same.

No.

They were spread all over the globe with no monolithic teaching authority other than the Holy Spirit Himself.

There was no regular text messaging going on.

There was a church here, and there, and there was another in a city further up. They had no cars, trains, planes, phones, emails, internet, postal service, and FAXes to distribute all the correct doctrines and practices from one source.

They had Apostles and messengers and evangelists like Timothy who did the work that today we do by phone, email, internet, postal service, etc. How did the proclamations of the Council of Jerusalem get carried out? By Paul and Barnabas Judas and Silas, a letter was sent.

Yes. A letter.

Local Churches in the Bible were most definitely not autonomous.

I never said they were.

It also depend on how you define “autonomous.”

They did not…all receive messages regularly from Rome with new disciplines and regular correction of doctrine.

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 gave new disciplines to the Church.

Avoiding things polluted by idolatry and fleeing sexual immorality were not new disciplines. Avoiding things polluted by idols and avoiding sexual misbehavior was known by the Jews for many, many centuries.

The new Law of Love was to not to antagonize those under the Law with their new found liberty in Christ.

The epistles were written, in large part, to correct doctrinal issues that existed in local Churches: that’s why they’re titled “Corinthians” or “Colossians” or “Thessalonians.”

Of course.

You can’t have it both ways: you can’t claim in one post that the Bible corrects errors and then claim in another post that individual local Churches did not receive regular correction of doctrine.

A letter to the Ephesians does not constitute “regular correction of doctrine.”

No.

Communication back then was difficult and expensive. The Ephesians were not getting regular memos from Rome checking on their doctrine and adjusting their practices…along with all the local churches or regions in the known world.

…

 

[Atemi]

Part 2:

And even if the “entire church” adopted a particular heresy over time, Mike, then it would no longer be considered a heresy…it would be orthodox doctrine. It would then become "tradition."

Yes, in this strange ahistorical world where all members of the Church suddenly had a heresy implanted in their brains with full history, that might be the case

Powerful heresises “develop” into "doctrines."

They marinate and simmer for years, spreading as public appeal grows.

Only the poorest of heresies just pop out of nowhere overnight.

The ancient Jewish church adopted heresies galore. God didn’t stop it. He never stopped any of His church leaders from wandering away from Him if they so chose.

And yet, somehow, He gave them some charism that prevented them from misleading entirely their flock.

No. He did not give that gift to the false teachers but to the faithful servants He had in Israel.

He does the same today.

He is faithful.

They were OBVIOUSLY not infallible, and the people as a whole obviously were not immune from believing them.

Or else why did Jesus tell the Jews, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you–but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” If Christ expected the Jews to obey even the leaders who condemned him to a painful death, how much more so should we obey the leaders of the New Covenant whom we are commanded to obey?

Christ encouraged His followers to disobey false teachings and Jewish “Sacred Oral Tradition.”

See Mark 7 or Matt 15 for perfect examples.

Christ surely did not teach His disciples to obey false doctrine. God forbid!

No.

You employ the broken apologetic about Moses’ Seat and then that drives you to further erroneous conclusions.

Heresy is not found by looking back to a time, but forward to it from a time before.

And the only way we can do that is by looking at a doctrine’s consistency with the time before. Catholic doctrine has consistency with the Church throughout the ages. Protestant doctrine does not. Therefore, we accept the former as authentic and reject the latter as heresy.

Well of course! You are a modern Roman Catholic. That is exactly what you would claim.

Others don’t see this consistency at all, including the Orthodox, the Traditionalists, the Old Catholics, Protestants, etc…

The NT nowhere discusses “the church as a whole” discovering and combatting error.

What did Paul mean, then, when he called the Church, the household of the living God, “the pillar and foundation of the truth”?

He was speaking about THE church: the Body of Christ made up of every believer in our Lord.

We are indeed the support and pillar for the truth so the world can see.

But again, nowhere do we see “the church as a whole” discovering and combatting doctrinal error. It just ain’t there.

If the “church as a whole” was discovering and combatting error, there would have been no need for the Apostles to constantly write letters to correct error after error.

**There is no need for warning of false teaching coming through the church if the church overcomes all heresies anyway… **

The Bible teaches that false teachers will arise within the Church, but that the remedy, the antidote for those teachers it to adhere to the teachings of true teachers

Yes. Agreed.

the Apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors, and evangelists: in short, the apostles and their successors.

They must be TRUE successors or they do not qualify.

God sends godly men, not offices.

The solution is never to take our Bible outside of the Church, interpret it for ourselves, and judge the Church by our interpretation of the Scriptures.

Exactly correct. Agreed.

…

 

[Trento]

If you refer to ALL the churches during the Apostolic era, then there was no “entire church”…one, singular, monolithic eccesiastical institution receiving instructions from a singular head.

No.

There was no singular authority in Rome running the show and determining what doctrines everyone was to believe and practices everyone was to follow.

No. There were individual churches run by overseers and elders.

There was a church here, and there, and there was another in a city further up. They had no cars, trains, planes, phones, emails, internet, postal service, and FAXes to distribute all the correct doctrines and practices from one source. They did not all regularly write Rome for directions and did not all receive messages regularly from Rome with new disciplines and regular correction of doctrine.

That is obvious from the history of the early church itself.

…

** Protestant Philip Schaff** states in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910)

“Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese.” (Schaff, page 157)

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states –
“…it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.” (Schaff, page 158)

 

[Atemi]

** Protestant Philip Schaff** states in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910)

“Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese.” (Schaff, page 157)

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states –
“…it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.” (Schaff, page 158)

That sounds good and all…and is true…but it does not address my point.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hey…I thought you said you never read “cut & paste” posts…

Gotcha!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Much like many of your own posts.

Actually completely unlike any of my own posts.

If you want folks to even understand what you are saying – let alone reach common understanding with you – then you would help your case by supporting your claims with lines of reasoning, authority, and references. Tautology is not terribly persuasive.